HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 10 FEBRUARY 1980
ISSUE V
Remimeo
Saint Hills	
Only
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE
LEVEL E CHECKSHEET
HUBBARD TECHNICAL DISSEMINATION 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 December 1963 to 1966. It also covers all theory data on the subject of Rehabs, Study Tech, and LRH development or Organisational Technology. The student gets a practical experience in handling study difficulties and in reaching out into his environment with Scientology Technology.

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 (8) SHSBC Level D Course.

PURPOSE: To provide the student with a background of the chronological development of tech from December 1963 to 1966 and to teach him developement of study tech and Scientology organizational tech with practicle application in his environment.

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:  Knowing you can sucessfully apply Scientology technology to your environment.

PRODUCT: An auditor who has a background of the chronological development of tech from Dec 1963 to 1966, can handle study difficulties and who knows he can use the technology of Scientology in his environment.

CERTIFICATE: SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LEVEL E HUBBARD TECHNICAL DISSEMINATION SPECIALIST.

SHSBC LEVEL E

THEORY SECTION

INTRODUCTION

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

CHRONOLOGICAL THEORY

0A.	TAPE: 	6311C28 	SEVEN CLASSIFICATIONS
		SHSBC-324		________
0B.	DEMO: Why you approach the man in the street as effect.	________
0C.	TAPE: 	6312C10 	SCIENTOLOGY 0 
		SHSBC-328		________
0D.	ESSAY: Several ways so handle a dangerous environment for a new 
	person.			________
1. 	HCOB 	14 Dec 63 	CASE ANALYSIS HEALTH 
			RESEARCH	________
2. 	HCOB 	28 Dec 63 	INDICATORS PART ONE: 
			GOOD INDICATORS	________
3. 	CLAY DEMO: “Indicators”.		________
4. 	TAPE: 	6312C31 	INDICATORS
		SHSBC-1		________
4A. 	DEMO: Why you audit and C/S by GIs.	________
4B. 	DEMO: The 3 grades of BIs and action to take.	________
5. 	TAPE: 	6401C07 	GOOD INDICATORS
		SHSBC-2		________
5A.	DEMO: What to do if a GI is missing in session.	________
6. 	TAPE: 	6401C09 	BAD INDICATORS
		SHSBC-3		________
7. 	DRILL: From the tape: “List all the BIs and solutions for them, that 
	would be present if a homo sapiens was shoved into your auditing 
	room”.			________
8. 	CLAY DEMO: “Good Indicators” and “Bad Indicators”.
9. 	HCOB 	21 Jan 64 	METER LEVEL WARNING	________
10. 	HCO PL 	24 Jan 64 	CASE SUPERVISOR	________
11. 	TAPE: 	6402C04 	AUDITOR SELF-CRITICISM
		SHSBC-4		________
12.	TAPE:	6402C06	COMM CYCLE IN AUDITING
		SHSBC-5		________
12A. ESSAY: How an auditor is there to handle the pc’s comm cycle, not his 
	own.			________
13. 	TAPE: 	6402C25 	WHAT AUDITING IS AND WHAT IT 	
		SHSBC-6 	ISN’T	________
14. 	CLAY DEMO: The difference between destimulation and erasure.	________
15. 	HCOB 	1 Mar 64 	METER READS, SIZE OF	________
16. 	DEMO: Why you only accept big reads at Level V and VI.	________
 17. 	TAPE: 	6403C03 	AUDITING AND ASSESSMENT 
		SHSBC-7		________
18. 	HCOB 	4 Mar 64 	CLASS II MODEL SESSION	________
19. 	TAPE: 	6403C05 	CASE ANALYSIS - HEALING
		SHSBC-8		________
20. 	HCOB 	10 Mar 64 	BASIC AUDITING NON-READING
			METERS - METER FLINCH	________
21. 	TAPE: 	6403C10 	SUMMARY OF LOWER LEVELS 
		SHSBC-9		________
21A. DEMO: How the 2 pole nature of the universes relates to auditing.	________
22. 	HCOB 	15 Mar 64 	OVERWHELMING THE PC 	________
23. 	DEMO: How charge becomes no cognite.	________
24. 	HCOB 	15 Mar 64 II 	EVERYTHING READING	________
25. 	TAPE: 	6403C17 	THE ROAD TO PERFECTION 
		SHSBC-11		________
25A. DEMO: How to provide someone with a gradient scale of wins.	________
26. 	HCO PL 	18 Mar 64 	HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES	________
27. 	TAPE: 	6403Cl9 	FLATTENING A PROCESS
		SHSBC-12		________
28. 	DEMO: Why a process is flattened.	________
29. 	TAPE: 	6403C24 	INTERNATIONAL CITY
		SHSBC-13		________
30. 	HCO Inf Ltr 	2 Apr 64	TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE	________
31. 	DEMO: The types of people and how to tell them by their motives.	________
32. 	HCOB 	7 Apr 64 	ALL LEVELS Q AND A	________
33. 	CLAY DEMO: How unfinished cycles of action are all that loused up 
	cases.			________
34. 	HCOB 	10 Apr 64 	ALL LEVELS AUDITING SKILLS	________
35. 	TAPE: 	6404C10 	HOW TO MANAGE A COURSE
		SHSBC-14		________
36. 	HCOB 	13 Apr 64 	TONE ARM ACTION	________
37. 	DEMO: Echo metering and echo invalidation.	________
38. 	DEMO: How a pc becomes meter dependent.	________
39. 	HCOB 	20 Apr 64 	MODEL SESSION LEVELS III TO VI 	________	
40. 	HCOB 	23 Apr 64 	AUDITING BY LISTS	________
41. 	TAPE: 	6404C21 	PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
		SHSBC-17		________
41A. ESSAY: How to work out a solution for someone.	________
42. 	The AUDITOR    May 64	THE WORKABILITY OF 
	Iss I 		SCIENTOLOGY	________
43. 	DEMO: Who makes the session and why this is so.	________
44. 	HCOB 	19 May 64 	CLASS II MODEL SESSION	________
45. 	TAPE: 	6405C19 	THE PRECLEAR AND GETTING 
		SHSBC-20 	AUDITING TO WORK	________
46. 	DEMO: Why you mustn’t let a person motivate.	________
47. 	DEMO: How to get someone to confront his actual overts.	________
48.	TAPE: 	6406C09	CYCLE OF ACTION - ITS INTERPRE-
		SHSBC-22 	TATION ON THE E-METER 	________
49. 	TAPE: 	6406C16 	“COMMUNICATION” OVERTS AND 
		SHSBC-23	RESPONSIBILITY	________
50. 	CLAY DEMO: What happens to a pc’s communication and 
	responsibility when he has overts.	________
51. 	TAPE: 	6406C18 	STUDYING, INTRODUCTION 
		SHSBC-24		________
52. 	TAPE: 	6406C30 	CAUSE LEVEL, OT AND THE 
		SHSBC-25	PUBLIC	________
53. 	TAPE: 	6407C02 	O/W MODERNIZED AND REVIEWED
		SHSBC-26		________
54. 	DRILL: How to handle a person who doesn’t think his overt is an 
	overt.			________
55. 	DRILL: How to handle a sick, blown person.	________
56. 	TAPE: 	6407C07 	DISSEMINATION 
		SHSBC-27		________
57. 	HCOB 	7 Jul 64 	JUSTIFICATIONS	________
58. 	DEMO: How overts and Justifications handling bring up the cause level 
	of the pc.			________
59. 	HCOB 	8 Jul 64 	MORE JUSTIFICATIONS	________
60. 	TAPE: 	6407C09 	STUDYING - DATA ASSIMILATION
		SHSBC-28		________
61. 	HCOB 	10 Jul 64 	OVERTS - ORDER OF 
			EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING	________ 	
62. 	DEMO: Why a person becomes lazy and inactive.	________
63. 	HCOB 	12 Jul 64 	MORE ON O/Ws 	________
64. 	HCOB 	24 Jul 64 	TA COUNTERS,USE OF 	________
65. 	DEMO: The use of TA counters.	________
66. 	TAPE: 	6407C28 	CAMPAIGN TO HANDLE 
		SHSBC-31	PSYCHOSOMATIC ILLS	________
67. 	HCOB 	29 Jul 64 	GOOD INDICATORS AT LOWER 
			LEVELS	________
68. 	TAPE: 	6407C30 	PSYCHOSOMATIC - ITS MEANING 
		SHSBC-32	IN SCIENTOLOGY	________
68A. DEMO: How to handle someone who gives you a lot of bad news.	________
69. 	TAPE: 	6408C04 	A SUMMARY OF STUDY
		SHSBC-33		________
70. 	TAPE: 	6408C06 	STUDY - GRADIENTS AND 
		SHSBC-34	NOMENCLATURE	________
71. 	TAPE: 	6408C11 	EVALUATION OF INFORMATION
		SHSBC-35		________
72. 	TAPE: 	6408C13 	STUDY AND EDUCATION
		SHSBC-36		________
73. 	HCOB 	14 Aug 64 	PREPCHECK BUTTONS	________
74. 	DEMO: Why the time limiter should be used.	________
75. 	HCOB 	14 Aug 64 	MODEL SESSION LEVELS III TO VI 	________	
76. 	HCOB 	17 Aug 64 	CLAY TABLE WORK IN TRAINING
			AND PROCESSING	________
77. 	CLAY DEMO: The only reason a student 1is slow or blows.	________
78. 	HCOB 	18 Aug 64 	CLAY TABLE WORK COVERING
			CLAY TABLE CLEARING IN DETAIL	________
79. 	HCOB 	24 Aug 64 	SESSION MUST-NOTS 	________
80. 	CLAY DEMO: The session must-nots.	________
81. 	TAPE: 	6409C01 	THE PE COURSE
		SHSBC-37		________
82. 	TAPE: 	6409C03 	CLEARING - WHAT IT IS
		SHSBC-38		________
83. 	HCOB 	7 Sep 64 	CLAY TABLE LEVELS	________
84. 	HCOB 	7 Sep 64 II 	PTPS, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS	________
85. 	DEMO: Why PTPs, Overts and ARC Breaks must be handled.	________
86. 	HCOB 	8 Sep 64 	OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND 
			THEM?	________
87. 	CLAY DEMO: The cycle of an overt.	________
88. 	HCOB 	9 Sep 64 	CLAY TABLE HEALING	________
89. 	HCOB 	9 Sep 64 II 	CLAY TABLE CLEARING 	________
90. 	HCOB 	12 Sep 64 	CLAY TABLE, MORE GOOFS 	________
91. 	TAPE: 	6409C15 	SCIENTOLOGY AND TRADITION 		
		SHSBC-39		________
91A. ESSAY: Why comprehensibility is vital to Scientology courses.	________
92. 	TAPE: 	6409C22 	A REVIEW OF STUDY
		SHSBC-40		________
93. 	CLAY DEMO: Why a student gives up studying.	________
94. 	HCOB 	27 Sep 64 	CLAY TABLE CLEARING	________
95. 	TAPE: 	6409C29 	GRADIENTS
		SHSBC-41		________
96. 	TAPE: 	6410C13 	CYCLES OF ACTION
		SHSBC-42		________
96A. DEMO: The gradient scale of reactions toward time.	________
97. 	HCOB 	17 Oct 64 	CLAY TABLE DATA	________
98. 	HCOB 	17 Oct 64 II 	GETTING THE PC SESSIONABLE 	________
99. 	DEMO: The action of educating the pc.	________
100.	HCOB 	17 Oct 64 III	CLEARING WHY IT WORKS 	________	
101.	TAPE: 	6410C20 	LEVELS - THE REASON FOR THEM 
		SHSBC-43		________
101A. DEMO: The 2 basic types of personalities on Earth and the type of 
	trouble you handle with each.	________
102.	TAPE: 	6410C27 	THE FAILED CASE
		SHSBC-44		________
103.	DEMO: “Why a case fails”.		________
104.	BOOK: THE BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES	________
105.	HCOB 	13 Sep 67 	REMEDY B	________
106.	DEMO: The application and use of remedies.	________
107.	HCOB 	1 Nov 64 	MORE CLAY TABLE CLEARING 
			GOOFS	________
108.	TAPE: 	6411C04 	COMMENTS ON CLAY TABLE TVD 
		SHSBC-48	BY LRH	________
109.	HCOB 	6 Nov 64 	STYLES OF AUDITING	________
110.	DEMO: Each style of auditing.	________
111.	TAPE: 	6411C10 	PTPS, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS
		SHSBC-46		________
112.	HCOB 	12 Nov 64 	DEFINITION PROCESSES	________
113.	HCOB 	16 Nov 64 	CLAY TABLE LABEL GOOFS	________
114.	TAPE: 	6411C17 	STYLES OF AUDITING
		SHSBC-47		________
115.	HCOB 	10 Dec 64 	LISTEN STYLE AUDITING	________
116.	HCOB 	11 Dec 64 	SCIENTOLOGY “ZERO” PROCESSES	________
117.	TAPE: 	6412C15 	COMMUNICATION - A GRADIENT 
		SHSBC-49	ON DUPLICATION	________
117A. ESSAY: How communication is the key to duplication and how to 
	apply it.			________
118.	HCOB 	26 Dec 64 	ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED)	________
119.	My Philosophy 1965 		________
120.	TAPE: 	6503C02	TECHNOLOGY AND HIDDEN 
		SHSBC-53	STANDARDS	________
121.	CLAY DEMO: “The common denominator of all hidden standards”.	________
122.	CLAY DEMO: A hidden standard.	________
123.	HCOB 	5 Mar 65 II 	BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES
			APPLICATION OF TECH	________
124.	TAPE: 	6503C09 	THE NEW ORGANIZATIONAL
		SHSBC-54 	STRUCTURE	________
125.	HCOB 	10 Mar 65 	WORDS, MISUNDERSTOOD GOOFS	________
126.	CLAY DEMO: What happens when a person gets a misunderstood 
	word.			________
127.	TAPE: 	6503C16 	THE PROGRESS AND FUTURE OF
		SHSBC-55 	SCIENTOLOGY	________
* 128.	HCOB 	29 Mar 65 	ALL LEVELS ARC BREAKS	________
129.	TAPE: 	65C3C30 	ARC BREAKS AND GENERALITIES
		SHSBC-56		________
130.	DEMO: A generality and what that has to do with an ARC Break.	________
131.	HCOB 	2 Apr 65 	THE ROAD TO CLEAR	________
132.	HCOB 	4 Apr 65 	ARC BREAKS AND MISSED 
			WITHHOLDS	________
133.	DEMO: The full handling of a “wlthholdy pc that ARC breaks a lot”.	________
134.	HCO PL 	5 Apr 65 II 	THE NO-GAIN-CASE STUDENT	________
135.	TAPE: 	6504C06 	ORG BOARD AND LIVINGNESS 	
		SHSBC-57		________
* 136. HCOB 	7 Apr 65 	PREMATURE ACKNOWLEDGE-	
			MENTS	________
137. DEMO: Premature acknowledgement and its effect.	________
138. TAPE: 	6504C13 	THE LOWEST LEVELS
		SHSBC-58		________
139. HCOB 	18 Apr 65 	HOW TO APPLY LEVEL 
			PROCESSING	________
140.	TAPE: 	6504C27 	AWARENESS LEVELS
		SHSBC-59		________
141.	HCO PL 	5 May 65 	CLASSIFICATION, GRADATION 
	Reiss 	4.7.70	AND AWARENESS CHART	________
142. TAPE: 	6505C11 	ARC BREAKS AND PTPs, THE
		SHSBC-60 	DIFFERENTIATION	________
143.	DEMO: What would happen it you ran a pc on an ARC Break when it’s 
	actually a PTP.		________
144.	HCO PL 	17 May 65 	CCHs 	________
145.	TAPE: 	6505C18 	ORGANIZATION AND ETHICS
		SHSBC-61		________
146.	TAPE: 	6505C25 	THE FIVE CONDITIONS 
		SHSBC-62		________
147.	DEMO: The five conditions.		________
148.	HCO PL 	27 May 65 	PROCESSING	________
149.	DEMO: The oldest rules we have.	________
150.	HCOB 	4 Jun 65 	CLASS II MODEL SESSION	________
151.	TAPE: 	6506C08 	HANDLING THE PTS
		SHSBC-63		________
152.	HCO PL 	17 Jun 65 	STAFF AUDITOR ADVICES	________
153.	DEMO: What is out when a pc won’t run.	________
154.	HCOB 	18 Jun 65 	CLEAR AND OT BEHAVIOUR	________
155.	HCOB 	28 Jun 65 	RELEASES, DIFFERENT KINDS 	________
156.	DEMO: The different kinds of release.	________
157.	TAPE: 	6506C29 	THE WELL-ROUNDED AUDITOR
		SHSBC-64		________
* 158.	HCOB 	30 Jun 65 	RELEASE, REHABILITATION OF	________
159.	DEMO: How to regain a former release or released OT.	________
160.	HCO PL 	1 Jul 65 II 	COMM CYCLE ADDITIVES	________
161.	DEMO: Comm cycle additives.	________
162.	HCOB 	3 Jul 65 	MODEL SESSION REVISED	________
163.	HCOB 	12 Jul 65 	STATES OF BEING ATTAINED BY 
			PROCESSING	________
164.	HCOB 	21 Jul 65 	RELEASE REHABILITATION	________
165.	DEMO: A) The definition of release. B) 1965 Rehab Procedure.	________
166.	TAPE: 	6507C27 	STAGES OF RELEASE 
		SHSBC-65		________
167.	DEMO: The relation of good to truth.	________
168.	DEMO: Why a person must be able to confront and handle physical 
	universe problems before he can confront his bank.	________
169.	HCOB 	27 Jul 65 	AUDITING BY LISTS	________
* 170.	HCOB 	2 Aug 65 	RELEASE GOOFS	________
171.	DEMO: The 9 release goofs listed and how to handle.	________
172.	HCOB 	3 Aug 65 	AUDITING GOOFS BLOWDOWN
			INTERRUPTION	________
173.	DEMO: The rule about blowdowns and why.	________
174.	HCOB 	5 Aug 65 	RELEASE STAGES	________
175.	DEMO: The five stages of release.	________
176.	HCOB 	30 Aug 65 	RELEASE STAGES	________
177. 	     Sep 65 	THE AIMS OF SCIENTOLOGY 	________
* 178.	HCOB 	13 Sep 65 	OUT TECH AND HOW TO GET IT IN	________
179.	CLAY DEMO: The 5 GAEs.		________
180.	DEMO: The 6 things which can be wrong with a pc.	________
181.	HCOB 	27 Sep 65 	RELEASE GRADATION ADDITIONAL 
			DATA 	________
182.	DEMO: The grades of release.	________
183.	HCOB 	29 Sep 65 	CYCLICAL AND NON-CYCLICAL
			PROCESS CONCLUSIONS	________
184.	DEMO: How to end a cyclical and non-cyclical process.	________
* 185.	HCOB 	29 Sep 65 II 	THE CONTINUING OVERT ACT	________
186.	DEMO: What is occurring with the person who is not making gains.	________
187.	HCOB 	1 Oct 65R 	MUTTER TR
	Rev. 	24.2.75		________
188. TAPE: 	6510C14 	BRIEFING TO REVIEW AUDITORS
		SHSBC-68		________
189.	DEMO: The 3 key data for review auditors.	________
190.	HCO PL 	14 Oct 65 	POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE
			ROUTING	________
191.	BTB 	21 Oct 65R 	RELEASE REHABILITATION	________
192.	HCOB 	5 Nov 65 	FIVE WAY BRACKET ON HELP	________
193.	HCOB 	7 Nov 65 	RELEASE REHABILITATION ERROR	________
* 194.	HCOB 	8 Nov 65 	SUPPRESSIVES AND HIDDEN 
			STANDARDS	________
195.	DEMO: Why finding a suppressive on a pc’s case will lead you to a 
	chronic problem on the case.		________
196.	HCOB 	16 Nov 65 II 	COMMANDS FOR UPPER INDOC	________
197.	HCOB 	19 Nov 65 	PROBLEMS PROCESS	________
198.	HCO PL 	19 Nov 65 	AUDITING REPORTS	________
* 199.	HCOB 	24 Nov 65 	SEARCH AND DISCOVERY	________
200.	CLAY DEMO: The 3 types of PTS.	________
201.	HCOB 	1 Dec 65 	CCHs	________
202.	HCO PL 	23 Dec 65 	SUPPRESSIVE ACTS	________
203.	HCOB 	27 Dec 65 	VITAMINS	________
204.	BOOK: SCIENTOLOGY: A NEW SLANT ON LIFE	________
205.	CLAY DEMO: Past, Present and Future.	________
206.	HCO PL	30 Dec 65	PTS AUDITING AND ROUTING	________
207.	HCOB 	19 Jan 66 	DANGER CONDITIONS TECHNICAL
			DATA FOR REVIEW AUDITORS	________
208.	HCOB 	21 Jan 66 	S & D ERRORS	________
* 209.	HCOB 	28 Jan 66 	S & D DATA, HOW A SUPPRESSIVE
			BECOMES ONE	________
210.	DEMO: The mechanism of suppression.	________
211.	Certainty 	Vol 13 	PSYCHOTICS
	No. 2			________
212.	HCOB 	5 Feb 66 	S & D WARNING	________
213.	DEMO: What could happen if an S & D item is missed.	________
214.	HCOB 	5 Feb 66 II 	LETTING THE PC ITSA”	________
215.	HCOB 	9 Feb 66 	RELEASE GRADES	________
216.	HCO PL 	10 Feb 66 II 	TECH RECOVERY	________
217.	DEMO: What to look at when the pc is cogniting on a process.	________
218.	HCOB 	11 Feb 66R 	FREE NEEDLES, HOW TO GET THEM 	Rev. 	22.2.79 	ON A PC	________
219.	DEMO: What the auditor requirements are to get free needles on pcs.	________
220.	HCOB 	12 Feb 66 	THE”DANGEROUS AUDITOR” 	________
221.	DEMO: The actions and omissions of a dangerous auditor.	________
* 222.	HCOB 	21 Feb 66 	DEFINITION PROCESSES	________
223.	Certainty 	Vol 13 	WHAT IS GREATNESS
	No. 3	Mar 66		________
224.	HCO PL 	8 Mar 66 	HIGH CRIME	________
225.	DEMO: High Crime violation.	________
226.	HCOB 	3 Apr 66 	DIANETIC AUDITING COURSE 	________
227.	HCOB 	10 Jun 66 	S & D COMMANDS	________
* 228.	HCOB 	10 Jun 66 II 	S & D - THE MISSED ITEM	________
229.	CLAY DEMO: What happens to a pc and bank when an item is missed 
	on a listing process.		________
230.	TAPE: 	6606C19 	ABOUT RHODESIA
		SHSBC-69		________
231.	HCOB 	20 Jul 66 	THE TYPE TWO PTS	________
232.	TAPE: 	6607C26 	CLASSIFICATION CHART AND
		SHSBC-71 	AUDITING	________
233.	DEMO: Why Grades 0-IV are in the sequence they are in.	________
234.	TAPE: 	6608C02 	SUPPRESSIVES AND GAEs		
		SHSBC-73		________
235.	DEMO: How a suppressive becomes one.	________
236.	HCOB 	10 Aug 66 	ERRORS OF STUDENTS	________
237.	TAPE: 	6608C16 	RELEASES AND CLEARS
		SHSBC-75		________
238.	DEMO: 	What happens when you audit past a release on a level.	________
239.	TAPE: 	6608C18 	STUDY AND INTENTION
		SHSBC-76		________
240.	CLAY DEMO: Intention.		________
241.	HCOB 	22 Aug 66 	FLOATING NEEDLES, LISTING 
			PROCESSES 	________
242.	CLAY DEMO: What has occurred when the needle floats during listing.	________
* 243.	HCOB 	23 Aug 66 	SERVICE FACSIMILE	________
244.	DEMO: Service Fac as a computation and a related doingness.	________
245.	TAPE: 	6608C23 	ORGANIZATION
		SHSBC-77		________
245A. TAPE: 	6608C25 	THE ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY
		SHSBC-78		________
246.	TAPE:	6608C27	GRADIENTS AND ARC	________
247.	DEMO: Demo how affinity undercuts reality.	________
248.	TAPE: 	6609C08 	STATES OF IDENTITY 
		SHSBC-80		________
249.	BOOK: THE BOOK INTRODUCING THE E-METER	________
250.	HCOB 	20 Sep 66 	MINUS SCALE RELEASES	________
* 251.	HCOB 	21 Sep 66 	ARC BREAK NEEDLE	________
252.	DEMO: An ARC Break needle, the pc and the bank.	________
253.	HCOB 	27 Sep 66 	THE ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY 
			THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST 	________
254.	DEMO: The difference between the anti-social and social personalities.	________
255.	HCO PL 	12 Oct 66 	EXAMINATIONS	________
256.	TAPE: 	6611C01 	GOVERNMENT AND 
		SHSBC-81	ORGANIZATION	________
257.	DEMO: The importance of 2WC in government.	________
258.	TAPE: 	6611C29 	OT AND CLEAR DEFINED
		SHSBC-82		________
259.	CLAY DEMO: OT.		________
260.	HCOB 	30 Nov 66 	ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE
			FACSIMILES	________
261.	TAPE: 	6612C06 	SCIENTOLOGY DEFINITIONS II
		SHSBC-83		________
282.	CLAY DEMO: The definition of power.	________
263.	DEMO: How Justification shows self-determinism, not pan-
	determinism.			________
264.	TAPE: 	6612C13 	SCIENTOLOGY DEFINITIONS III 
		SHSBC-84		________
265.	DEMO: What happens when anyone tries to cut a pure theta line.	________

- END OF SHSBC LEVEL E THEORY SECTION -

SHSBC LEVEL E

PRACTICAL SECTION

BARRIERS TO STUDY

1. 	HCOB 	25 Jun 71R 	BARRIERS TO STUDY
	Rev. 	25.11.74		________
2. 	DRILL: Find at least 3 people who show manifestations of one or more 
	of the 3 barriers to study and handle them with study tech.

STUDENT RESCUE INTENSIVE

1. 	HCOB 	23 Nov 69RB  STUDENT RESCUE INTENSIVE
	Re-Rev 	4.9.78		________
2. 	HCOB 	9 Nov 67 	REVIEW AUDITORS BOOK OF CASE 
			REMEDIES REVISION OF REMEDY A
			REMEDY B AND S AND Ds	________
3. 	DRILL: The steps of a Scientology Student Rescue Intensive.	________
4.
5.

PREPARED LISTS

1. 	HCOB 	15 Nov 74 	STUDENT REHABILITATION 	________
2. 	DEMO: When a Student Rehab List is done. 	________
3. 	DRILL: Handling the Student Rehab List. 	________
4.
5.

FALSE DATA STRIPPING

1. 	HCOB 	7 Aug 79 	Product Debug Series 8 EstoSeries 36
			FALSE DATA STRIPPING	________
2. 	DEMO: When False Data Stripping is done.	________
3. 	DRILL: False Data Stripping procedure.	________
4.	
5.

STUDENT CONFESSIONALS
1. 	HCOB 	15 Nov 72 II 	STUDENTS WHO SUCCEED	________
2. 	BTB 	24 Dec 72RA 	CONFESSIONAL FORM 5 STUDENT	
	Rev. 	10.3.77	CONFESSIONAL LIST	________
3. 	BTB 	29 Nov 61 	STUDENT PROCESSING CHECK	________ 	
	Amended &		AND 2ND DYNAMIC PROCESSING 
	Reiss.	9.7.74	CHECK	________
4.
5.

PRACTICAL REQUIREMENT

1. 	Find a student who is having study difficulties and handle to a very 
	good result.			________

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

1. 	The Word Clearing Series.		________
2. 	Study Tech including:-
A. 	The Study Tapes.		________
B. 	BTB 	26 Jul 63R 	TRAINING TECHNOLOGY 
	Rev & Reiss	6.12.74	COACHING MATERIAL	________
C. 	BTB 	14 Sep 69 I 	LEARNING PROCESS EDUCATION 
	Reiss 	4.7.74 	BY EVALUATION OF IMPORTANCE	________
D. 	BTB 	14 Sep 69 V 	LEARNING PROCESSES	 
			EDUCATION BY DUPLICATION AND 
			REPETITION	________
E. 	BTB 	10 Dec 70R 	THE LEARNING DRILL
	Rev & Reiss 	10.8.74		________

THIRD DYNAMIC HATTING

1. 	BTB 	7 Feb 71 	ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING 	
	Reiss 	16.7.74	DRILLS - ADMIN TRs	________
2. 	BTB 	7 Feb 71-1R 	ADMIN TRs CORRECTED 
	Rev & Reiss 	17.7.74		________
2A. 	BTB 	7 Feb 71-2 	ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING, 
			DRILLS	________
3. 	DRILL:-
A. 	TR MEST 0 	_____	TR PEOPLE 0	_____
B. 	TR MEST 1  	_____	TR PEOPLE 1	_____
C. 	TR MEST 2  	_____	TR PEOPLE 2	_____
D. 	TR MEST 3 	_____	TR PEOPLE 3	_____
E. 	TR MEST 4  	_____	TR PEOPLE 4	_____
4. 	HCO PL 	23 Oct 65 	DISSEMINATION DRILL	________
5. 	HCO PL 	12 Dec 79 	AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL FSMs
6. 	DRILL: The Dissem Drill until you are very comfortable with doing it.	________
7. 	HCOB 	15 Sep 59 	DISSEMINATION TIPS	________
8. 	SO ED 	1316 INT 	NEW FSM TRs - CONTROLLING A
			CONVERSATION	________
9. 	DRILL: Each of the FSM TRs.	________
10. 	Tech Dictionary - word clear “Field Auditor”.	________
11. 	HCO PL 	9 May 65 	FIELD AUDITORS BECOMES STAFF	________
12. 	HCO PL 	2 Jan 65 	FRANCHISE: WHO MAY HAVE IT 	
			AND HOW TO MAINTAIN IT, AD15	________
13. 	HCO PL 	31 Jan 69	HUMANITARIAN OBJECTIVE AND 
			GUNG HO GROUPS	________
14. 	HCO PL 	25 Jul 69 II 	DIANETIC COUNSELING GROUPS 2	________ 	
15. 	FLAG ORDER 137 	THE SEA ORGANIZATION	________
16. 	MAG ARTICLE 	BOOTS IN THE SKY	________
17. 	CLAY DEMO: The purpose for having Scientology Third Dynamic 
	Organisations and functions.		________
18.
19.

PRACTICAL REQUIREMENT

1. 	Contact a raw public and sell him a book or select him for a Dept 17 
	service at a local org or mission.	________

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

__________

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 E, HUBBARD TECHNICAL DISSEMINATION 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

6311C28 SHSpec-324 Seven Classifications of Auditing

Scientology will go as far as it works, not as far as it is administered.  Therefore, LRH has focussed on full technological development first, with the administrative picture to come later, when the technical data was completed.  The administrative pattern could not be let out without having the technical data together.  The tech data turned out to be an account of a highly precise, coordinated activity.  It turned out that people couldn’t be audited at high levels unless brought there gradiently.  This turns out to be true at lower levels too.  People have to understand what is being asked.

There is always a repercussion to any stimulus-response cycle (or cause-distance-effect cycle), the response being a new stimulus-response (cause-distance-effect) cycle.  So every stimulus response cycle has a return stimulus response cycle, where the first response acts as the second stimulus.  The philosophic conundrum is that you cannot act without consequences in this universe.  The Buddhist answer to this conundrum is, “Cause nothing.” [I.e., by not building up Karma] We have another solution: audit it out.  But only a trained scientologist will grasp this.  The questions of “What is right conduct?” and “Can you ever really cause anything?” come up. here.  If you try to trace back the cause of something, you can get into difficulty.  Say a guy is shot with a rifle.  You can try to trace back the cause to the finger tightening, to the thought or intention behind this, to the motive, to early childhood, to mother, ad absurdum.  To solve the problem of where cause started, you could say it started nowhere. But that doesn’t really solve anything.  

People get so interested in the cause end of the cause-distance-effect line that they never look for the other end.  They never look to see what cause comes back from the effect point.  For instance, Oswald fired a rifle, and twenty-four hours later he is shot dead.  “A cause-effect cycle always leads to a cause-effect cycle.” There is room for lots of think about it, but one simple fact applies in this universe:  you can’t cause something without receiving some sort of effect in return, in this universe.  The magnitude of the effect may differ.  There is the question of how much you can confront. How much you cause is monitored only by how much you can confront.  If you can confront getting shot, shoot.  Moral conduct would consist of only causing those things that could be confronted by those to whom it is caused.  That is a route around the overt-motivator sequence: [Cf. the “two rules for happy living” in Scientology: A New Slant on Life, pp. 23-28.] [Cause only what others can confront.” If you do this, you lead a rather unrestimulated life. If you are causing things that others can’t confront without great detriment, such as starting a war, you can expect to get your head knocked off eventually, even though you think you could confront it.  An overt is the generation of effects that are unconfrontable, and the motivator will be someone causing an effect that you can’t confront.  That is the story of this universe.

Self-determined thought is “not permitted” in this universe.  The message of this universe is “All thought occurs by association.” But this is not true.  What is omitted from this is that at any moment, a thetan can get an idea, totally independent of all other ideas, by an independent postulation. [Not by stimulus-response; by prime motion.] That is what puts randomity into the whole picture.  Psychologists and earlier philosophers didn’t believe in independent postulation, or they missed it.  Lacking independent postulation, there is a trap.  They will argue that you can’t think of an independent thought because whenever you do, you will find that there is another thought with which it is associated.  In trying to disprove this, you go into agreement with it, so you can’t disprove it.  This is the old “hippopotamus” mechanism:  “Don’t think of the word, ‘hippopotamus’,” was part of the alchemists’ formula for the transmutation of baser elements into gold.  [Cf. the “Think a thought” process, in PAB 54, pp. 2-3.] People want to predict human behavior, so they never look at the fact that human behavior can be unpredictable and take this datum into account as part of their predictions. This denial of the human being’s ability to be unpredictable takes away self-determinism of think in this universe.

Now we get up to the question of how much think a person can tolerate. Running overts on the man in the street, we get motivators instead of overts, all put forward as “overts on self”.  This relates to the concept of responsibility.  The man in the street thinks that it is all being done to him.  That is why Book One has such appeal.  In scientology, the emphasis is on “You done it.” Thus scientology has a higher responsibility level than dianetics.  This makes scientology higher-toned.  However, it is harder to attract people to scientology, on that account, than to dianetics. Irresponsibility is very popular.  People prefer to think that they never started an action, that they never really caused anything.  

This relates to the thinkingness of a criminal.  The criminal “knows that nobody owns [anything] anywhere, but ‘they’ have entered into a conspiracy [by which] they pretend that people think People own things.  And this is done for only one reason:  these other people pretend this to get [him] in trouble [and to] be nasty to him....  Courts ... exist, not because there is such a thing as crime, ... [but] so that they can pretend outrageous and unreasonable things, so that they can get [him].” So criminals have a total reality of the uncriminality of criminal acts.  Criminal acts aren’t criminal to the criminal.  The cops have picked up some of our think on this, e.g. the idea that criminals can’t work.  But they don’t realize that the person they arrested for overtly stealing a car knows that the police are a bunch of frauds.  The car never belonged to anybody, and the police are fraudulently pretending that cars are owned, in order to get this fellow in trouble.  MEST goes to pieces around criminals, because they “know” no one owns anything. The criminal’s reality is basically a neurosis which, at lower levels, becomes a psychosis.  For instance, another characteristic of the criminal is the notion, “I didn’t shoot anyone because there is no one there.” Everything is a figment of his imagination.  [Solipsism].  His imagination gives him a universe, which he knows is delusory.  Even the guy in the street has the idea that something was done to him that accounts for his condition.  He feels that all responsibility for his state of beingness is exterior to him.  The common denominator of most thought is, “It was done to me.” Responsibility lies without, not within this individual.  Failed or would-be writers used to get LRH’s goat by saying, “I always wanted to write, but I didn’t have the education.” They were saying this to LRH, who was trying to get rid of the phobias had instilled in him:

When you disseminate scientology, you err by not estimating the amount of cause that the person is willing to accept.  You are willing to assume some degree of cause, but he is not.  And he will find the thought of overt causation and responsibility to be unreal.  He believes that he is the total effect of life.  There is some truth to this: the PC can be the effect of a tremendous number of things, to the extent that he can’t see himself as cause.  You might be able to reach him at this level:  “At some time in life, in some area, if you look it over very carefully, you may find that you had something to do with what happened.  For instance, perhaps once you decided to read a book and did it.” That he might agree with.  You give him a rule he might apply, e.g. communication, or how to do a touch assist right, and he will find that he has caused something, by experience.  This approach is more effective than that of giving him the theoretical, philosophical data.  He realizes that he is causing the effect.

People mostly want “the comfortable agony” of being at effect.  Catholics get to thinking, “Heresy:”, if you tell them that they can cause effects or create things.  They are the toughest nuts to crack: people who are saddled with religious superstition are the hardest to bring out of this rut.  In Ireland, the lecture on creation laid an egg every week for this reason. “Create” is the wrong word to use.  “Cause” would be better, though even that is hard for people to admit.  The areas where one knows everyone fails are those of communication, relationships with people, and health.  Those are desirable effects, so if you give the individual tools and let him find that he can cause an effect in these areas,   you have snapped him out of the cycle of “Be nothing but an effect.  To cause is impossible,” etc.  It is not that the man in the street isn’t interested in philosophy.  It is just that he has failed at it.  The savants have made the field seem unapproachable, but what they are concerned with isn’t live philosophy, anyway.  The real philosopher is the little guy in the street, who actually is concerned with questions like, “Who am I?”, “What am I?”, “What am I doing here?”, “What are people?”, “What happens to me when I die?”, “Why don’t people like me?”, etc.  In short, the real philosophers are people like you and me.  And those are the basic questions that philosophy hasn’t answered, but pretends to have answered at an unattainable level.  For many, this failed attempt to arrive at answers to these basic questions led to the service fac, “God made everything.” [Cf. “The why is God.”]

We come to no full stop in this search until we realize that every being is an independent being, who is himself capable of expressing a thought or intention independent of any other thought or intention at any moment.  The idea that Man is or can be cause cracks the back of philosophy.  When we recognize that every individual is capable of being causative, we have no scarcity of answers.  When we realize that it is the degree to which an individual can accept or execute causation, independent of other influences, that brings about his state of case, we have then cracked the whole riddle of philosophy.  And training a person gives him the idea that he can cause an effect.

As soon as we’ve got a time stream, then all “befores” influence all “afters” [Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy].  Then we can prove that nobody can be cause, because the time stream exists.  This holds water, until we realize that the time stream itself is capable of being influenced by postulate.  The time stream can both be caused and escaped from.  It this is possible, then we have a level of cause that is senior to the time stream.

In disseminating scientology, if you only tell people things about it on which you yourself have excellent reality and which you have experienced, you will find that you communicate like a shot to everybody, because the R-factor in you is so high that you cannot help but put it across to others.  Complete truth from the point of origin does get across, with effect.  It isn’t the startling thing you say; it’s the real thing you say.  And it isn’t whether it is real to the other guy.  It whether it is real to you.

The classification scale is a scale of “willingness to accept cause over one’s destiny and that of others.” It gives the degree of being at cause. Madmen get into obsessive cause, as a lower-scale mockery.  But you could find where someone is on this scale every time, by finding what he has done and withheld and feels responsible for -- i.e. what his O/W’s are.

Cause is not expressed in actions in life, but in case responses.  It is cause over one’s own case that is important, where we are concerned.  People make progress in processing or they don’t.  If they don’t, they set the same goals, session after session.  If the PC’s goals change violently, from one session to the next, there was an ARC break.  Cases don’t leap from one case state to another.  They gradiently and smoothly become more at cause over more matter, energy, space, time, and other beings.  The person isn’t necessarily becoming more causative; he is more capable of cause.  He can handle his mind better.  He is therefore capable of handling other things better.  His responses in processing are your best possible indicator.  This is not a quick test, however, so it tends to be neglected.  

Case progress is a direct index of cause.  You don’t realize how far you have come until you ask someone on the street whether he has any problems, and you find that he is living in a madhouse, from his viewpoint.

The seven classes of auditor are really eight, because they start at zero, an unclassed class, plus seven classes.  [See HCOPL 26Nov63 “Certificate and Classification Changes:  Everyone Classified” for a description of the classes.] A person could be a Class Zero and have a certificate, without being of a class.  That is important, because there are always some people who work very hard and pass their checksheet [but don’t make the grade].  They get a certificate, showing that they were there.  Classification means more than just getting the certificate.  A Class Zero certificate is not a sign of being classed.  There are all sorts of valuable processes lying back along the line, and they fit into various slots.  For instance, a Class II will be studying comm lags of equal length, as a sign of when to end a process.

This is all an effort to graduate cases on up the line.  LRH has found that they do not advance further than they are trained, so this is the creation of a bridge from lower to higher levels.  This increases information and skill and auditing availability right on up.  The way it is now, people don’t know where they are or where they are going or what is expected of them.  There are professional PCs from 1950, waiting for someone to process them to OT, whose cases haven’t improved much.

There will be a chart with all the processes and training skills of each class on it, all the way up.  At some late date, there will be a textbook all the way up.

6312C10 SHSpec-328 Scientology 0

It works out this way: Having completed scientology research all the way to the top, LRH has had to undercut it all, to find a new series of processes and a new processing theory on which to build the edifice.  That is quite a trick!  Knowing the upper strata only makes it harder to build the lower strata, because you see it so clearly that it is hard to see how someone else, lacking your knowledge, could miss it.  You can know exactly what is wrong with somebody, but if he knows differently, you can’t get him to see your solution or your view of the problem.

LRH finally has a Scientology 0 to undercut Scientology I.  It was a description of the environment and what is wrong with it.  It has nothing to do with the person’s mind at all.  Scientology I is the isness of things, and it takes care of the mind as well, but Scientology 0 takes care of the environment.  It is summable up as The Dangerous Environment.  That sums up:

1. What you are talking about.

2. The frame of mind of the person talking with you.

Look around and find something that isn’t threatening you or pushing a PTP on you or trying to exteriorize you.  This will help to pull your attention out of the threatening environment.  It allows differentiation to come about instead of identification.

Many people are professional dangerous environment makers.  The “chaos merchants” push dangerous environments on people in a sensationalized form. This includes politicians, newspapermen, policemen, etc.  They spread confusion and upset and breed fear of the environment.  This is the same thing that a blackmailer or an extortionist does.  They make the environment seem more dangerous than it is.  They sell the dangerous environment 100%.  The avidity of their sell can be used by the scientologist, by means of a sort of “theta-judo”, practiced on them.  Understanding Scientology 0 includes understanding how to use the enemies of scientology, the chaos merchants.

Toynbee, working out of libraries, came to a tremendous understanding of life.  He says that the reason that the Mexican, for example, does not succeed is that he has insufficient challenge in his environment.  Toynbee has obviously never talked to any Mexicans. It is a myth that primitive peoples get apathetic because of insufficient challenge in the environment.  The challenge of the environment is actually overwhelming to downtrodden peoples, primitive peoples, etc.  The environment is too dangerous for a fellow to have ambition.  This is actually true of anyone who lives on earth.  The individual on this planet, if he has not been able to achieve his destiny, is in an environment that he finds overwhelming.  His methods of dealing with it are inadequate, and his existence is as apathetic or as unhappy as his environment seems to him to be overwhelming.  Get those principles down, and you will have Scientology 0.

A lot of people spend their time worrying the people around them to death.  They spread confusion and upset, while wondering why their victims don’t get ahead.  These are small-scale chaos merchants, compared with newspapers, but they are more intimate.  

Doctors get paid, not by the number of people who are well, but by the number who are sick.  The police would go broke if the prisons didn’t make more and better criminals.  Police chiefs would be unimportant if they had few police under them.  Newspaper reporters dream of a “big story”, meaning a good disaster.

The environment is never as dangerous as it is made to appear.  A solution to the threat of nuclear war could undoubtedly be found, especially if there were a profit in it.  But anything that tends to make a calmer environment meets and makes a ridge with anything that has a vested interested in the fact and idea of a threatening environment.  The expansion of scientology will lessen the amount of fear.  It will lower the stress perceived by people as emanating from the environment.  Scientology would make for a calmer environment.  It would not be a less interesting environment, but a calmer one, one that is in less turmoil.  This could permit resurgence of the individual, because he would be less enturbulated.  You would get a beneficial spiral, where the threat of the environment would be dying out. The chaos merchant doesn’t like calming influences.  They threaten his livelihood and survival.  On an individual level, a domestic chaos merchant gets upset when his or her victim gets calmer, with exposure to scientology. It is very disconcerting to a chaos merchant to be met with humor, instead of seriousness.

The true story of scientology is simple:  A Ph.D. develops a philosophy. People find it interesting.  People find that it works.  People pass it along to others.  It grows.  That is what the newspapers are trying to make a story out of.  From their viewpoint, there is no story, because there is no conflict.  You can amplify the story and get some statistics, but anything else is distortion and lies, added on to make the story disturbing and sensational.  But all disturbance folds up in the face of truth.

In a universe kept going and continually disturbed by lies, all the basic facts have been covered up, particularly those relating to life and death. Many contrary data have existed.  Fundamental questions belong in philosophy, but philosophy has become so decadent that it is no longer a source of truth. It is, at best, a limited truth, and in going for truth, you have to go all the way [see 6211C01 SHSpec-207 “The Road to Truth”, above].  The clean blade of truth cannot be stopped.  But if you talk truth, you had better have your hands on it.  Socrates talked truth but didn’t have a good enough grip on it.

When you start to introduce scientology to anyone, the first target would be the environment, not the person’s mind.  You could dream up processes, based on the assumption that the person believes that the environment is too dangerous for him.  Any relatively sane person will agree with you on that. We know that it is being made to seem more dangerous than it is.  This is a key point of Scientology 0.  So the person could be brought to perceive that this is so by his own perception.  It is also a key point that the person’s:

1. Health,

2. Sanity,

3. Activity level,   and 

4. Ambition  are monitored by his concept of the dangerousness of the environment.  From these factors, we can draw up an improvement program for any person.  We can therefore improve these things in the individual without reference to his mind.  We have dealt with this before, under the heading of controlling environmental restimulation.  We know that to handle his problems terminatedly, we will have to handle the mind.  Nevertheless, we can get very marked and noticeable gains and improvements by handling his environment, since we know that most of the threat that he is worried about is imaginary.

The therapy could be as simple as, “Don’t read the newspaper for two weeks, and see if you don’t feel better.” At the end of two weeks, have him read the newspapers for a week.  Get him to see whether he then feels better or worse, so that he can decide.

If he gets too upset or confused, tell him to look around the environment and find something that isn’t a threat to him.  A good havingness process [at Scientology 0] is finding out what is a threat to a person, and running it as a negative havingness process.  This is actually very sophisticated.  It could be used at upper levels, run against some particular fear.  It is an improved version of “Take a walk and look at things.” This is positive education.  The reason, “Take a walk; look it over,” works is that the individual sees that the environment isn’t threatening him to the degree that he thought it was, when he has inspected it.  So you could use a process like, “Look around you and find something that isn’t going to fall on you.” At Scientology 0, you are trying to get the individual to inspect the environment and find some greater security in it.

The general auditing approach would be, “Look around you and find out if the environment is as threatening as it appears to be,” but each person would have to be handled individually.  You could get a person to look at the papers on his desk that are threatening him, and find something in them that isn’t a threat.  That is “taking a walk” while he is sitting at his desk.  For a person who feels that everyone is hostile to him, you could use, “Find something that people say or do around here that isn’t hostile to you,” or “Find one person in the organization that isn’t actively hostile to you,” or “Was there anything said today that wasn’t immediately and directly hostile to you?” This could also be played in the direction of exaggeration, but then it goes up to a higher level, in a mental direction:  “Get the idea of a Chinese in every corner, shooting at you with Cong hatchets.” You could use, “Look around here and find something that isn’t trying to exteriorize you.” Etc.

All this runs on the single auditing command, “Look.” There is no effort to get any itsa about it.  Almost any inspection of the environment is helpful except a negative one.  If the PC has a secondary; if he has lost an individual, in an environment where he has been with the person a lot, e.g. in a love affair, you can use, “Look around here and find something that isn’t reminding you of (the ex-lover).”

The mechanism here is that the person has identified everything in the environment with his unrest.  Everything in the environment has become identified with the threatening things in the environment.  The person’s charge on the environment can be destimulated by indicating things that are not so threatening, thus getting a person to differentiate.  When identification becomes differentiation, intelligence and judgment can return.

An interesting commentary on the character of Man lies in the fact that if you really want to interest people, at a lecture or P.E. course, you should give them something that they can use to help others, rather than something that will help themselves.  Man is basically good, and this is a proof. Therefore, your supplementary advice should always go on the basis of “Who are you trying to help to discover that the environment is less dangerous than it seems?   You had better understand the data well enough, so that you can give it to him well enough, so that he can use it and see a result, and then use it on himself.  If you do this right, you will often get the cycle:

1. The person finds out something to help Pete.

2. It works on Pete.

3. He decides to try to use it to help himself.  “Take a walk and look at things,” is about the mildest advice you could give someone.  It would be quite effective if he actually did it.  LRH did this, and found that by putting tension on the beam with which he was looking at things, he could pull himself forward, without having to walk.  This got intriguing.  He went skimming his heels on the pavement until he noticed a cop looking at him.

The master question is, “What part of the environment isn’t threatening?” This question gets the person to differentiate.  You can also get him to arrange his life a little.  If you can get a person to just plan a life in which everything is calmer and less threatening, the life he is living becomes calmer and less threatening.
When you move this up into Scientology I and introduce communication factors and show the person how to communicate with people, he will find that he can produce an effect on people and that people are less threatening.  If you keep havingness in mind, as you go up the levels, you never lose the benefit of having the environment being less threatening, which you started at Scientology 0.

All people are trying to:

1. Get out of the environment,    or 2. Master the environment, if they can’t escape.  
Any thetan has these intentions, and has had them all the way up the universe.  These are the only totally common PTP’s of an environment.  The individual would also like to find something to help his friends.  What you need is a level of help that requires practically no education at all.  This would become real to the individual.  Just the concept that he considers the environment dangerous and would like to find the source of threat is an enormous piece of wisdom to him, since before you identified it for him, he was being it.  If you provide a therapy by telling him to stay away from the things and people, etc., that upset him and find and associate with the things that aren’t a threat, he will make amazing progress.  This pushes a whole new philosophy under the structure of scientology. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 DECEMBER 1963

Central Orgs
Franchise

CASE ANALYSIS
HEALTH RESEARCH

I recently indicated that I was doing some research into alleviation of physical difficulties, not because we are in healing but because the AMA should be taught a lesson for attacking us.

The research took a sudden optimistic turn with the new subject of Case Analysis, HCO Bulletin of November 26, 1963. While Case Analysis is not used for healing purposes, it can be varied at very low levels to produce some astonishing results in health.

The steps for Case Analysis are (1) Discover what the pc is sitting in, (2) Get the lies off, (3) Locate and indicate the charge. In (1) the pc is sitting in whatever the pc says he or she is sitting in, i.e. “I don’t know” means pc is sitting in a puzzle and is used with steps (2) and (3) by finding what he has supposed and then with the Itsa handled, establishing the truth of it.

The following example severely follows the (1), (2) and (3) steps of Case Analysis without seeming to and without the pc having a clue about either Case Analysis or Scientology for that matter. This was done by a DScn using the new fundamentals of Case Analysis as an independent action to help someone, and very cleverly done it was. I asked the auditor to write it up for you.

“Dear Ron,

“An account of an assist which I gave recently.

“The pc, aged 17 years, was completely new to Scientology: he was suffering from chronic bronchitis, which was currently particularly worrying to him as he had just been given a serious warning by his doctor that this could become TB.

“I used the case-analysis assist, first establishing he was ‘sitting in’ chest trouble, then getting him to tell me all he could about the condition, then I asked (after the TA had slowed down) what he considered was the cause of the trouble, i.e. getting the untruth off, and he said, ‘Well, I think it is caused by the climate’—this was accompanied by a big TA blowdown; no further considerations were forthcoming and no more TA action, so I then asked if this condition ‘had anything to do with something that he himself had wanted to do’ (i.e. an ACTUAL GPM)—no BD, so then asked did it have any connection with ‘something that someone else had tried to make him do’ (i.e. IMPLANT GPM), no BD, so then asked if this was connected with someone or something he had ever known (RIs). This produced a big BD and pc spoke of his grandfather’s death: a further BD when I enquired if his grandfather had died of some chest trouble. Then I asked if any other person or incident was connected to his chest trouble: big BD on ‘Nearly drowned in a swimming pool just before grandfather died.’ I let him ITSA on both these incidents until TA slowed down, then indicated to him that the trouble was connected to grandfather’s death AND the near-drowning incident—this gave a further BD.

“In all this assist (in model session) took 34 minutes and made 7 divisions of TA BD: pc made his goal ‘To get to the cause of the trouble’, and the Gain: ‘It’s got me deeply interested in the work.’ Pc has virtually lost his cough and has applied for a staff appointment at HCO WW. This pc had never heard of Scientology prior to about one week before the assist.

                                   				Best,
                                    					(Auditor)”

Note: 12 days after this auditing the coughing was still in abeyance.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 DECEMBER 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise

ROUTINE VI

INDICATORS
PART ONE: GOOD INDICATORS

Note: No Auditor at this date is qualified to run actual GPMs regardless of any former training. The successful technology has not been fully released. There are no Class VI Auditors. If you were trained, run only Implant GPMs, the technology for which has been fully released.

An INDICATOR is a condition or circumstance arising in an R VI Auditing Session which Indicates whether the session is running well or badly, and if badly what action the Auditor should at once take.

There are good indicators and bad indicators, but all of them are indicators.

The good indicators mean that the session is progressing properly and that the next routine action should be undertaken. Good indicators abound in a properly run session. Here are some GOOD INDICATORS:

PC cheerful. 
PC cogniting on Items or Goals. 
PC’s Items found are the ones the pc thought they were on the list. 
PC listing Items briefly and accurately. 
Early Items on list turning out to be the right ones. 
The right item reading on the needle with a chug as though through a resistive wall and then heavily falling with Blowdown. 
Items found not rocket reading. 
Goals found rocket reading. 
Short Item lists (1 to 15 or 20 items on the list). 
Items being found rapidly without a lot of hassle even though the right item hard to make read. 
Tone Arm continuing in motion. 
Not stuck (symptom of wrong goal or by-passed GPMs or RIs). 
Needle active. 
Not stuck (symptom of RR gone off which means wrong goal or wrongly worded goal). PC not troubled with new mass appearing when item is given. 
RI given pc blowing tone arm down when pc asked if it is it. 
Further blowdown of TA with full dial needle slash when pc told it is his or her item. 
Distinct needle slash, two inches or so, when pc asked if new item solves or is solved by RI found just before. 
Full dial slash of needle when pc answers question as to what is the position of the newly found Item in the bank. 
Heat on the Item list. 
Heat on the goals list. 
Heat on the RI found. 
No pain on RI found. 
Tone Arm riding between 2.5 and 3.75 (acceptable) or 2.25 and 3. (excellent).
Good Tone Arm Action on finding Items (about 125 TA Divisions per GPM in fast running). (About 30 or 40 TA Divisions down per 2l/2 hour session, minimum.) 
The right item reading with only some coaxing. 
PC with no PTP about which really went where concerning goals or RIs found in earlier session. 
PC with no question as to what was the right goal or item after it is found. 
PC not critical or ARC Breaky. 
PC not protesting Auditor’s actions. 
PC looking younger by reason of R VI Auditing. 
PC without weariness. 
PC without pains or aches or illnesses developing during auditing. 
PC wanting more Auditing. 
PC’s confidence in finding goals and items getting progressively better. 
PC’s Itsa free but not so extensive as to halt session progress, giving no more than 30 seconds or a minute, usually less, to Itsaing a goal or item. 
Auditor seeing how goals oppose goals. Auditor seeing how RIs solve RIs or are solved by them. 
The goals plot making sense to the Auditor. 
The Line Plot looking proper, with correct gradients, to the Auditor. 
No vast mental effort demanded of the Auditor to follow pc’s logic in why something opposes something or solves something. 
PC not developing heavy PTPs or somatics between sessions or in session.

-----------

The good indicator tells you things look the way they ought to look and are going the way they have to go to make an OT.

When these good indicators are absent then is the time to start doing searches, repairs etc.

In actual practice you get so used to good indicators that you don’t really think of them as indicators at all. Therefore you keep your attention alert for bad indicators and when these show up you have to act and promptly.

Like many other things in this universe you don’t concentrate on the smooth, you stay alert for the rough.

But it is a great mistake for an Auditor to be so nervous about bad indicators that the pc is thrown into a Whatsit when nothing is wrong. Things will go wrong then for sure.

The rule is: Expect good indicators and go on with routine actions as long as they are present. Observe quickly and knowingly bad indicators and rapidly act with the correct response.

Every bad indicator is precise, easily observed and has an exact counter-action.

The speed with which a bad indicator is observed and the certainty with which it is corrected prevents the session from producing more bad indicators.

Observe the trouble sign instantly. Know what to do for that exact sign instinctively. Repair swiftly. And in these points we have the whole secret of fast progress.

It is not the pc who slows the session. It is the Auditor’s lack of knowledge of bad indicators and their remedies. The longer a bad indicator goes unobserved and unrepaired the longer it will take to repair it. In R VI errors consume time far, far out of proportion to successes. One overlooked bad indicator can consume a month of auditing time. In that month three whole banks would have been run. But no. The month is consumed with unproductive wanderings, the pc and auditor torn to bits with stress and ARC Breaks.
It’s all a matter of indicators and knowing what to do. If that knowledge is poor, then—well, no OT, that’s all. The road is traveled with total correctness only. It is never traveled at all when unremedied bad indicators are present. The auditor is either totally competent or totally incompetent. There are no shades of grey. One error unremedied puts the whole project on the dump heap.

So the auditor has to know his business. And so does the pc. And errors can’t be let go by. This is the Routine of Perfection. Sloppy, hope it will get by, well it doesn’t matter attitudes will not make OTs.

Any error passed up and neglected will within minutes or sessions wreck the lot. Miss a GPM or half a dozen Items and within two banks the pc will bog completely and hopelessly and never progress further until the earlier error is remedied.

It’s like having a pc on rubber bands. The pc will go down the track from an error just so far and then, as though the bands tighten to drag him back, will run slower and slower and then suddenly one is faced with a pc who can’t run at all!

But these errors are not undetectable. The instant they occur a bad indicator shows up. The speed errors are remedied determines the speed of advance of the case.

The don’t-care, hope-it-will-get-by, why-repair auditor just can’t audit R VI and will only seriously mess up pcs. This is the condition of the final road out. I wish it were different but it isn’t. It’s that way.

An auditor can know his business.

There is a finite, specific answer for every bad indicator that shows up. Therefore an auditor, to succeed in R VI must:

1. 	Know Basic Auditing and meters and Itsa like an old smoothie;

2. 	Know the anatomy of GPMs, RIs, and the objects of the mind and all their possible combinations like a card sharp knows cards;

3. 	Know the techniques of R VI like a completely relaxed one-man band;

4. 	Know all good indicators at a glance;

5. 	Know every bad indicator and its response with a bang-bang, one-two certainty that never permits a moment’s wonder as to what’s going on or what to do.

6. 	Know the rules of R VI rat-a-tat-tat.

Given those six things, an auditor can make an OT in under a thousand hours. A weakness on any one of them will not only not make an OT but will fiendishly mess up a case. For even if you know R VI cold you will make enough mistakes to keep you very busy.

The pity of it is that one must become an expert before he or she performs on an actual case. But that must be overcome. I learned it from scratch. So can you with all the data now neat before us.

LRH: dr.bh							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard.		
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6312C31 SHSpec-1 Indicators

This was the year in which we achieved the technology of OT, and in which we laid the bridge, with all the older processes from dianetics on.  It is the year in which we had our hardest attacks since 1950.  These attacks are losing or have lost.  The IRS lost its suit on LRH and MSH.  “IRS” means “Infernal Ravening ...”!  The work for 1964 should include codification of materials, writing textbooks for the different levels, etc.  Several techniques have been developed for a higher-classed auditor to run on a lower-level PC.  We are ready to open the door wide on the subject of psychosomatic healing.  We could put it on an ethical basis by saying that if you don’t get results on a patient, you refund his money.

Anybody who is receiving Level VI auditing [See above, for a description of this level.] from an auditor who flubs, goes through more illnesses and psychosomatics than anyone can count.  LRH understands the phenomenon of psychosomatics and is consequently a little contemptuous of doctors’ treatment of these conditions.  It is rather horrifying, from an auditor’s viewpoint, to see what is thought of the illness and how it is treated.  The auditor would like to be able to see what goal it is, what RI, what service fac, etc., when chaos reigns, caused by misalignment of the psyche.  This is fascinating in its complexity and disillusioning in the simplicity of its cause.

The technology for handling the bank has finally been worked out. It is complex, it takes expert auditing and an educated PC, but the result is an OT.  This is a far higher result than was expected before 1962, to a degree that it is unreal to most people.  At times, it is even unreal to LRH.

Even when the auditor and the PC have tremendous skill, they can make huge mistakes.  For instance, LRH has been looking for his PT GPM for months. He has found seven so far, each one thought to be the PT one.  He has been unburdening the track by running them as they were found.  He is aware of good case advance since starting out.  Now his goals lists go for five or six items, one rocket-reading, then it goes on by stacking it up, putting the GPM on top of it, listing in to the top oppterm, to see if there was anything there, to see if there was a GPM closer to PT.  “We handled four of them like they were old sacks of straw.” He finally got the PT GPM.  For the first time, he looked forward and saw nothing there.  He woke up, wondered if a couple were backwards: “Creak:” Got his considerations: no creak.  This is a far cry from a few months ago, when he was wrapped around a telegraph pole with regularity.  

You made the early GPM’s without having a body. So it is tough on bodies to run into RI’s, etc.  It is nice to be “outside”, not subject to the body’s intolerance of temperature extremes.  The problem LRH ends the year with is “As an OT, how do you drink Coca-Cola?” It doesn’t evaporate like liquor, and LRH is too big to get into the bottle.  He thought of putting it in a tub, with ice.

If you have wondered whether you will ever make it all the way, while you are making it all the way, you will have many other periods when you will be certain that you will never make it all the way.  That is the greatest certainty that LRH can give you.  He has “known” many times that it was impossible for you to make it.  But he has recovered.  The final end product of scientology or of a thetan in this universe has been achieved in 1963, whatever else can be said for the year.  Indicators

This is a new subject.  Routine 6 [This is probably the procedure given in the last tape.  See HCOPL 5May64 “Summary of Classification and Gradation and Certification” p. 4.  See also above, for a summary of this procedure.] cannot be run without knowledge of indicators and of the proper actions to do when certain things are present or not present.  Indicators are present at every level.  There are good indicators and bad indicators.  To know about bad indicators, you must know what good indicators are.  One needs to know both, in order to have a datum to compare with.  For instance, you don’t cut the PC’s itsa, because you want the good indicator of smooth needle and cheerful PC, not because of fear of instructors.  In the field of, say, music, one has some standards and expectations of how it should sound on hi-fi equipment, etc.  That is the comparative datum, the good indicator, the standard.  A test for hi-fi equipment is, “How should it sound?” Poor hi-fi equipment sounds like you are in the lobby of the theater when the aisle doors are closed.  If you walk down the aisle to about the center of the theater and listen, that is what good hi-fi equipment should sound like.  People, watching LRH’s auditing on demos, have shown that they don’t have a standard to judge the session by.  LRH worked out good and bad indicators to make the standards known and explicit.  If you know what is right with a session, you can tell what is wrong with one.  Good indicators.

People should be happy in session.  “The only frame of mind that you can as-is in is a cheerful, high-toned [one].  The PC should be cheerfully itsa-ing to the auditor.  If he runs a secondary, he runs grief off of it and comes out of it, etc.  We get a picture of what the session should be, with good indicators.  If they are not there, then bad indicators are there.  These bad indicators should be handled, so as to get the good indicators back.  GI’s mean that the auditor should continue what he is doing.  BI’s show that the auditor should so something else.  The particular BI’s that are present determine what the auditor must do.  E.g., if the PC makes a critical remark about the auditor, pull a missed withhold, do a session ARC break assessment, or run O/W.  How the PC should look and sound; how the bank should respond; how the meter should behave -- all these are the good indicators.

(Note that at Levels V and VI, the male and female clear reads no longer apply, since a thetan doesn’t have a sex.)  

The time to do something about a bad indicator is when you can’t go on, with good indicators, not just whenever a bad indicator shows up.  The broad range of optimum TA range is 2.0 to 4.0.  The common range of TA excursion is 2.75 to 3.5.  There are three grades of bad indicators: light, medium, and heavy.  They compare to the suddenness with which you must take action.

1. The light indicator shows you that something is wrong, so that you can be alert for a need for action, but nothing necessarily needs to be done.

2. On moderate BI’s, action must be taken as soon as it can be comfortably done.

3. On heavy BI’s, emergency crash action must be taken right now.  An example of a grade 3 BI would be the PC not wanting auditing.

4. A grade 4 BI would be something like a car going over a cliff.  You hear a dwindling scream.  This PC is never going to be audited again.

GI’s mean expected, not extraordinary.  Wanting auditing is more common than you would expect.  It is a GI we take for granted.  If a lot of GI’s are present, a few BI’s don’t matter too much.

An ordinary BI, not a VBI, would be the fact that the PC has a PTP.  You tend to it promptly, since a PC with a PTP makes no progress.  A PC with an ARC break gets worse with auditing, so that is a VVBI.  That is the only time that auditing worsens a case.  So the GI’s are: “PC in session, with no PTP and no ARC break.” This is something that one should know for auditing supervision.  You cannot supervise by BI’s; only by GI’s, because when GI’s cease to exist, your action must be directed towards recreating them, not just at eradicating BI’s.

You could base your expectations of case progress on how many GI’s are present.  For every GI not present, some BI is present.  Do the appropriate thing to remove the BI, and get the GI back.  Know GI’s more by heart than BI’s, since if there is a BI, you can always go to the textbook to figure it out.  For instance, you notice that the PC keeps having PTP’s.  You eventually think of the datum that when the PC keeps having PTP’s, his goals must be totally divergent from the auditor’s goals, and the session itself becomes the PTP.  Don’t act when BI’s are not present.  Only correct what needs correction!  Don’t let a win on repairing one PC’s BI’s become the stable datum for all PCs, who don’t have the same BI’s.

This disposes of the idea that some PCs are auditable and others aren’t. You are an auditor, and the standard procedures on which you are being trained are the way in which you materialize GI’s in a session.  They are all calculated to bring about GI’s in the PC.  The gains of auditing are astonishingly automatic, these days.  You just audit the PC on a standard program.

If BI’s pop up, always take care of the worst one first.  Naturally you want to get the heaviest BPC out of the way first and keep patching up the case only until you can get back on the road.  The GI on an auditing question is:

1. The PC has received something to inspect.

2. He inspects it.

3. He tells you what he has inspected.  He answers the question fully, as far as he is concerned.

4. Then you acknowledge.  

It doesn’t matter if you gave him one command and he inspected fully and took a half an hour to answer, or if you gave him many repetitive commands and he fully answered the question.  He is going through an electronic circuit, and he comes out the other end free of it, having inspected it.  If you cut his itsa along the way, he gets lost in the middle of the labyrinth of electronic material.  This gives rise to a dirty needle.  Just keep the PC going, with GI’s, building his confidence and not cutting his itsa, moving him along up the line.  

6401C07 SHSpec-2 Good Indicators

[Some of the material in this tape is also contained in HCOB 28Dec63 “Routine VI Indicators -- Part One:  Good Indicators”.]

The good indicators listed in HCOB 28Dec63 don’t all apply to all sessions, but most do.  They don’t just apply to R6 sessions.  [For definition of R6, see above.] If you learn what good indicators are, you can spot bad indicators.

An auditor tends to look for wrongnesses.  That is the nature of scientology.  Because if there weren’t something wrong with Man, he wouldn’t be here.  Unlike other “-ologies”, we see an individual as basically good, able, and powerful.  This is the reverse of most people’s approach, so the way have to improve Man is also different.  We have tremendous evidence that our concept is true and that the opposite one is erroneous.  For instance, we found that children’s I.Q.’s drop more and more, the longer they spend in school, because the longer they stay there, the more false stable data get shoved down their throats.

Truth is demonstrated by workability, though some dispute a truth because its workability challenges their favorite theories.  All present sciences have built up to their current state on the basis of workability.  The idea of deleting something in order to bring about a recovery from a bad condition is not new with us, but the simplicity of asking someone for solutions that he has had to the condition is a new departure.  You can ask what solutions and decisions a person has had, relative to his lumbosis, and get a recovery, from deletion of additives.  This is all part of the idea that adding something to a being makes him feel worse.  Take a being who is feeling blah:  When we put in mid-ruds, we are subtracting actions.  We are subtracting the livingness of some period, and he will feel better.  LRH has made a more extreme test of this theory.  He subtracted an insane being’s body from him, by exteriorizing him.  When exteriorized, the being was immediately sane.  Back in his body, he was insane again.  This is not therapeutic.  It is just an experimental technique.
The good things of life are havingness at one’s own choice.  The individual’s power of choice is the only thing he had to begin with, which gave him power, capability, etc.  That power of choice has been consistently and continually overthrown by giving him things he didn’t want and taking away from him things that he did want.  

Someone who solves something and fixes the solution instead of just confronting the thing is putting himself down in power.  In scientology, the only right we have to educate anyone is that we are teaching things that are as close to fact as they can be made.  And the technology of how it is put together is so close to how it is put together that it runs itself out.  This is the reason why scientology education doesn’t have to usual bad effects of education.  Scientology education runs itself out because it is so close to the truth.  Whenever you have a solution to a problem, it gets stuck, except in the case of scientology.  Scientology is the only solution in the universe that erases itself.  You can do almost anything with scientology because of this.  When scientology solves something, “it solves what has solved it.”  Its truths are shown to you so that you can reach other truths.  The data of scientology is so minor, so sweet, and so pure, compared to all the other types of solutions -- GPM’s, RI’s, service facs, electric shock treatment, etc. -- that we don’t come under the heading of adding aberrative data to the individual as a solution to his difficulties.  Even if scientology data sits there for awhile on top of some aberration, it will eventually reach through the thing on which it is sitting, uproot it, and the truth of the data will cause it to blow (as-is) along with what it “solved”.  You are all sitting in some RI [that could behave in this way].  An individual becomes aberrated by additives.  His experiences in this universe are calculated to degrade and depower him.  All you have to do is to pick up, to as-is, the mess, and you will return him to power.  If you handle his school “education”, for example, his I.Q. will rise.

The data of scientology “is a restimulation of more basic and fundamental truths, which, restimulated, tend to blow later data.” Some people can just study scientology and leap out of bed, well.  This adds up to the fact that Man, to date, is an added-to being.  Everything that has been added to him has decreased his ability to cope.  We have gotten him dependent on tools and that sort of thing.  The more you give a person to work with, e.g. the more machines, etc., he is supposed to work with, the less he works.  His ability to work is reduced by these additives.  Primitive cultures, with minimal tools, work long and thoroughly to create aesthetic elements as part of ordinary workaday objects.  Someone with lots of tools doesn’t get much done. For instance, the Esquimo, with very simple tools, elaborately decorates his spear, whereas the person with drill presses, lathes, etc., says, “I can’t do this thing, because I have to have that other thing first.” There’s a relationship between having to have and getting things done.  The more you have, the less you tend to get done.  “Have to have” becomes “never do”.  The fellow who has to have and have in order to get anything done does very little.  The Chinese carpenter, working with hand-made fish bone dowels and a bow-drill, didn’t have to have anything elaborate to drill a hole, etc.  Yet he was able to get more done, by a good deal, than his western counterpart with his elaborate tools.  You could have added to the universe of this Chinese carpenter the postulate that “You can’t do without certain tools,” (Think about that wording:), to the point where he could no longer do.  That is an aberrative side to some thetans’ bent for collecting havingness, e.g. LRH and his cameras.  In collecting cameras, he has paid less attention to any one of them, so now he gets fewer pictures with more cameras.  There can be a minimum amount of equipment needed to get a job done.  But an overwhelmed being has to have and can’t do.  The more you add to the workman, the less he can accomplish.  

“Because we are in the business of deleting wrongnesses from the individual, we seldom look at rightnesses.  That is what is wrong with most auditors.” The recognition of the fact that a truth is present to be amplified or increased is a vital part of auditing.  If you don’t notice the rightnesses present, you don’t see the truth present, that can then be used to promote more truth.  So nothing gets done.  If you only recognize wrongnesses, you won’t be able to pull anything up a gradient, because you won’t think that you have any rightnesses to work with.  Our only purpose in finding wrongnesses is to increase rightnesses.  You have to look at wrongnesses to remedy them, but you have to look at rightnesses to increase them.  Progress is built on a gradient scale of rightnesses by which you delete wrongnesses, and they drop away.” Processing is an action by which wrongnesses can be deleted from the case to the degree that rightness is present in the session.” You cannot take a case that has no rightnesses present and delete any wrongnesses.  Auditing is the process of maintaining rightness so that you can delete wrongness.  You are trying to get a right being.  If you don’t continuously encourage right beingness, you will never get a right being.  To correct a wrongness, you have to have at least as much rightness present.  If rightness and wrongness are equally balanced, it is a dangerous situation.  You are better off if the rightnesses far outweigh the wrongnesses.  This will give you an easier job of auditing.  The PC’s ability to as-is is a rightness of varying magnitude.  A PC who is pretty overwhelmed can’t handle or as-is a large wrongness.  If you delete good indicators from the session, the PC won’t be able to as-is anything.

“A PC’s ability to as-is or erase in a session is directly proportional to the number of good indicators present in the session, ... and his inability to cope in the session rises proportionally to the number of bad indicators in the session.”  If the good indicators have dropped out of the session, the PC’s ability to handle wrongnesses is much less.  You have got to get GI’s back in before you can expect the PC to handle what you want him to handle. You have to retrograde the process to match the state of the PC, if he becomes BI’s.  For instance, you may have to run the PC on a touch assist or havingness.

You must watch, and if a good indicator goes out, you look for the bad indicator (if you are slow), find out what happened, and correct it.  Bad indicators don’t necessarily appear when good indicators disappear.  They are separate breeds of cat.  The auditor must always find out what is wrong, in a session, before the PC finds out.  That is how you maintain altitude.  To maintain optimal altitude, handle the scene when the good indicator goes out, but before the bad indicator comes in.  Spotting the absence of a good indicator and remedying the situation with a remedy of appropriate magnitude will avoid the expense of auditing time on expensive repairs.  A light indicator means that you should be alert; a medium indicator requires correction; a heavy indicator means, “Emergency!” Any process has its own series of bad indicators.  Bad indicators come in when good indicators go out.  Don’t spend your time looking for bad indicators.  Just know the good indicators so well that when one of them goes out, climb on and handle.  Be alert.  But don’t always be looking for wrongnesses.  

Good Indicators in Routine 6 and Lower Levels  

1.  PC cheerful.  In R6, no misemotion is allowable.  At lower levels, for instance, the good indicator would be the PC getting more cheerful.  In R3R, misemotion should be diminishing.  But at Level VI, the PC should be running like a grinning idiot.  

2.  PC cogniting.  This should happen sometimes on any level.  Lack of cognition indicates that the PC has a PTP or an ARC break, or that he is running at a level above his reality.  At lower levels, the good indicator would be the PC cogniting.  At Level VI, the PC should be cogniting on RI’s and goals.  

3.  PC’s items found are the ones that the PC thought they were.  At lower levels, it often turns out that what the PC thought was wrong is what was wrong.  The PC’s fundamental rightnesses assert themselves.  

4.  At Level VI: PC listing items briefly and accurately.  At lower levels, the good indicator is giving things to the auditor briefly and accurately.  The PC is finding things accurately and speedily.  

5.  A properly-reading meter.  At Level VI, items found are not rocket-reading.  At lower levels, things found give the proper meter responses.  

6.  At Level VI: short item lists.  At lower levels, it doesn’t take a long time to get things done.  

7.  Items found without a lot of wrassle.  At lower level, this translates as being able to get data from the PC without a big hassle.  

8.  TA continuing in motion; TA not stuck.  This good indicator can be overridden by the good indicator of the PC easily and rapidly flattening processes.  

9.  Active needle.  The needle is fluid or fluent, moving, not stuck.  A Mark V meter can be set at too high a sensitivity, giving the appearance of a more fluid-looking needle than you really have.  It moves around.  On the other hand, you may need high sensitivity for pulling withholds, etc., where it doesn’t matter if you clean a clean once in awhile.  On the other hand, if you leave the withhold, by using too low a sensitivity, you have had it.  For R6, sensitivity 8 is maximum for listing and 16 for mid-ruds.  You can have TA action with a gummy needle.  Watch for that. This is still a missing GI.  The needle should be swinging cleanly.  

10. PC not being troubled by pains and somatics when answering auditing questions.  Or, any somatic the PC runs into discharges very rapidly.  A somatic that stays there and gets heavier is a bad indicator.  You want change somatics.  

11. TA goes down when PC cognites.  You should get a further blowdown of the TA when the PC talks about something.  

12. PC gets warm and stays warm in auditing or gets hot and unheats in auditing.  The PC doesn’t get chilled.  Getting chilled is a BI.  

13. PC’s somatics turn on occasionally.  This is a GI at lower levels.  It is a BI in R6.  

14. TA range 2.5 to 3.75.  TA range 2.25 to 3.0 is excellent.  This applies at any level.  

15. Good TA action on spotting things.  The expected TA action for any level is the best indicator.  

16. Getting reads on what you and the PC think is wrong.  

17. PC has no PTP.  This is a good indicator, unless the PC is in total propitiation.  The bad indicator would be the PC’s developing PTP’s about the session, in session.  

18. PC satisfied after auditing and staying certain of the auditing solution.  

19. PC not critical or ARC breaky -- always GI’s.  

20. PC happy and satisfied with the auditor, regardless of what the auditor is doing.  

21. PC looking younger by reason of auditing.  This is not common, but it is a good indicator.  

22. PC without weariness.  

23. PC without aches, pains, or illnesses developed in auditing.  

24. PC wanting more auditing.  

25. PC confident and getting more confident.  

26. PC’s itsa free, but only extensive enough to cover the subject under discussion.  If the PC’s itsa is too extensive, he is trying to stop the auditor from auditing.  The PC should itsa, but not too much.  

27. Auditor understanding why it is the way it is when the PC explains it, or how it was the way it was.  The PC is saying things that make sense.  The auditor should be able to understand the PC.  

28.  PC there under his own volition. (Taken from next tape).  If all these good indicators are present, you know that you are doing a good job. 

6401C09 SHSpec-3 Bad Indicators

In trying to relay truth, it is always necessary to break it down into a system by which it can be communicated.  The system that breaks auditing down into basic auditing, technique, and case analysis is a useful one.  [See the tape 6 11C05 SHSpec-321 “Three Zones of Auditing”. Case analysis now breaks down into the general subjects:

1.  Case analysis.

2.  Good indicators.

3.  Bad indicators.

Case analysis consists of keeping a continuous eye on the PC’s indicators.  Case analysis is:

1.  Noting when the GI’s are still present.

2.  Being alert and noting when one has dropped out.

3.  Looking to see what BI has appeared.

4.  Programming to remedy the BI with some appropriate technique.  Actually, there is a shifting back and forth between technique and case analysis.  Case analysis contains programming.  [See The Book of Case Remedies.]

Bad indicators include the fact that the PC is in a body, not an OT:  The corresponding good indicator would be that he is there of his own volition.

The first bad indicator is that the PC looks like he doesn’t want to be in session anymore.  That is, a good indicator is gone, namely, the PC’s being there of his own volition.  The bad indicator is unwillingness to be there. That is our first hurdle: no free choice, not there of his own volition.  That ends the case analysis.  

The above is a simple example of case analysis.  From there on, it is a matter of selecting a process to fit the case level.  What technique to use to handle this BI depends on the level of the PC and the auditor.  So case analysis starts out with the observation that the expected indicator or behavior, i.e. the natural behavior of a being, the good indicator, has gone out.

Good indicators are actually the natural behavior of a being.  “The world [particularly since Freud, with his idea of the censor] has been crashing along on this ... lie ... that inhibited behavior is social behavior and that any uninhibited behavior is anti-social.  So the criminal is ‘uninhibited’, so you have to ... punish him and put him in a cell ... , and if you inhibit him enough, you will make a social being out of him.  [Actually, super-inhibition brings about] social catastrophes.” If you can’t fix behavior, you can always inhibit it.  You are suppressing it, though, and a thetan’s forward actions and desires do not fade away.  They only submerge.  “Impulses do not fade away; they only submerge.” This is Axiom 0: a thetan never gives up trying to create an effect.

(“Holding a grudge” is a 1.1 characteristic.  E.g. Henry VIII got even with the pope by creating the Church of England.)

This gives you a better understanding of people in general -- seeing what happens when impulses meet with inhibition: people get even.  You will understand history, teen agers, criminals, and everything a lot better if you realize that a thetan never really gives up.  This is the secret of behavior. This is why teen-agers so commonly reject their families:  The child never forgives the parents for certain things, often tiny things.  You have to find the source of a “rejection” or a “revolt”.  Auditing easily brings this to the fore.  The child rejects his parents to get even.  Besides, forgiveness, per se, is propitiation.  The source of Man’s ingratitude and the secret of leadership is just the fact that a thetan never gives up.  “As an auditor, you are just auditing all the nutty, aberrated, inhibited times when [the PC] never gave up, when he postulated something silly, when he tried to do something stupid.” You can actually graph how some innocent goal or impulse goes through this process of degradation:

1.  It becomes inhibited, submerged, and warped.

2.  It emerges at a lower level as an overt.

3.  Below that, it emerges as a withhold.  You could graph that on any ambition.

4.  Below that is unawareness, which submerges down to

5.  Unconsciousness.

6. Humanoid.  That is how a goal becomes an overt, a withhold, unawareness, unconsciousness, and, below that, humanoid.

So when a being comes in for auditing, his being there of his own volition is the biggest good indicator there is.  He is surrounded by bad indicators, which you are going to eradicate.  The hope factor is put in by validating whatever good indicators are present.  The next best indicator is that the PC is getting better.  “Betterness”, to us, means “less present, in the sense of, ‘My ankle is getting better.’” The pain, confusion, etc., is less present.  “Betterment ... is the lessening of a bad condition.”  So the PC getting better, wrongnesses less present, is a good indicator.  This is negative gain.  If all you did in a session were to validate the good indicators that were present and attack and handle, one by one, the bad indicators that were present, thereby restoring more good indicators, you would get amazing results; you would be enormously successful.  The PC would approach Native State.  

Don’t try to train or audit someone against his own volition, assuming that you have tried and failed to change his mind.  It is a bad indicator. All you need to be able to do is to spot GI’s, and when GI’s are not present, to spot the bad indicator that is present, and to go ahead and handle it.  If a case goes on talking about something, he hasn’t gotten rid of it, and you haven’t yet achieved negative gain in the area.  All your lower-level gains are based on destimulation and removal of BI’s.  Progress on a case is measured by the number of GI’s that you are restoring.  This applies to Level IV or below.  [Note that this is the precursor of grades auditing.]  Bad Indicator No. 1:

PC nervous about auditing.  Level 0:   At the lowest levels, you assume that the PC is not there on his own determinism and work on fixing this up.  You want to have a PC who is not nervous about getting auditing.  At Level 0, discuss scientology with him.  Let him know what it is about.  Try to get him there under his own determinism.  Get him to decide.  Level I:   Discuss auditing, healing, therapies, etc.  Get his ideas about these things.  Reassure the PC that you are not auditing him to make him guilty.  You are only concerned with making the able more able.  Get what others’ ideas or opinions are about treatment and what it might do to him.  Try to cope with the PC intellectually.

Get into a general discussion of his being audited.  Level II:  Here, you could run a repetitive process, which could go as follows:  “What have you had to do which you didn’t want to do?”, or “What orders have you had to follow about your health?” General O/W would also be runnable at this level.  Level III: Pull missed withholds on auditing, past auditing, or treatment.

Prepcheck any of those, or something like “On auditing goals ... “ or “On being forced to be audited....” You could run R2H [Now renamed R3H].  You could do ARC break assessments or find the PC’s basic ideas about being audited -- how he originally felt about it.  Level IV:  Here, you’ve got service facs, ARC breaks with auditors, practitioners, ARC breaks that the PC has had in past processing, etc., etc.  At Level IV, we can find one session that the person didn’t want in the past, because of a withhold or something.  That would be a key point to knock out of the way.  You could run, “How would refusing to be audited make you right/others wrong?.” “Why shouldn’t you be audited?” is a crude but workable process, at this level.  Bad Indicator No. 2: PC unfriendly or cool towards the auditor; unappreciative of the auditor or auditing.

This opens the door to a large area of withholds, overts, cut comm, cut itsa, etc.  You can run out of itsa by specializing in solutions only, not problems, even though the TA motion comes from solutions.  Thus, you sacrifice some present TA motion for a greater amount of future TA motion.  You could spend fifty percent of your time on problems and fifty percent on solutions and get more TA by not running out of itsa.  It is a fifty-fifty proposition. This is because GPM’s are fifty percent terminals (fixed solutions) and fifty percent oppterms (fixed problems).  Both give good TA.  

Unfriendliness to the auditor could stem from the auditor’s keeping the PC from itsa-ing as area of interest, including problems.  You must get into problems somewhat, so that the PC has something to talk about at all.  The PC will get unfriendly if the auditor never gives him anything to talk about.  

Level 0:   Get the PC to discuss what damage the auditor might do to him or her.  This is a lousy solution, since it asks for more “critical”, but it is better than nothing.  Get the PC to explain why he shouldn’t be audited.  This can get him quite friendly and right into session.  

Level I:   Another low-level remedy would be, “How could you help me?” This raises the ARC of the PC.  You could also get the PC to explain any trouble he has gotten into by imparting confidences or talking too freely.  That also gets off a few missed withholds.  You could use, “What are you willing to talk to me about?”.  

Level II:  You could use similar processes here, as well as general O/W on auditors.  

Level III: You could pull withholds missed by auditors.  You could prepcheck auditors, practitioners, help, or failed help, as indicated.  

Level IV:  You work on help and failed help on a service fac basis, using: “If you were really helped by auditing, how would that make you wrong?” “If you weren’t helped by auditing, how would that make you right?”  

When PCs at Levels V, VI, and VII are unfriendly to auditors, there is some foul-up in the root of the bank.  Bad Indicator No. 3:

PC nervous about being audited in a particular auditing room.  That’s the auditing environment.  These things always run down to some horrendous PTP or ARC break.  

Level 0:   Discuss the dangerousness of the environment.  

Level I:   Discuss dangerous environments in general, the trouble he has had in auditing rooms, in practitioners’ rooms.  Get solutions off -- how he has solved it.  Level II:  Finding things that are safe.  

Level III: Havingness.  

Level IV:  Get associative restimulators.

Here is a suggested exercise:  Make a list of bad indicators that could be present if a homo sapiens were dragged in chains into your auditing room. Then figure out what you might be able to do about these things.  Given enough time, perhaps over a course of months, you should be able to turn him into a high-flying PC by:

1.  Seeing a good indicator missing.

2.  Noting all the bad indicators.

3.  Selecting the one that is most in the road of auditing.

4.  Eradicating that one first.

5.  Continue handling the BI’s, one by one, by getting considerations off, etc., until no more BI’s are present.  Using this procedure, you could get anyone, no matter how initially hostile he was, to want auditing, on his own determinism, and not by overwhelming him. Auditing is converting BI’s to GI’s.  

As you work the case, remember that the person has had some impulses. somewhere along the line, that got inhibited and submerged.  Handling those by getting back to them will give a resurgence of the case. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY 1964
Central Orgs
Franchise

METER LEVEL WARNING
HOW TO KILL A PC IN LEVEL 5

Breath and Body Motion
(All levels)

Body Motion, sudden expulsions of breath, emphatic gestures, shouts and foot squirmings and anger can make the TA move down and can cause surges that can be mistaken for reads, even rocket reads. Not knowing this can falsify an assessment or leave the bank undischarged.

In all assessing or meter running make sure it was the Bank the meter read, not Breath or Body Motion.

* * * * * * * * * *

How to Kill a Pc in Level 5
(taken from LRH instruction to students
on Saint Hill Special Briefing Course)

What’s all the shouting on Items in “R3N”? Items won’t read unless pc quietly random lists. I think you’ve forgotten in written random listing as how to make RRs appear on the Implant RIs. Get a random list of a few the pc thinks of. Then the Implant RI will read easily with no shout.

This datum gets lost every few months. Keep it around.

Pc’s sudden expulsion of breath can cause an RR too. Maybe you’re getting no charge off.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:vm.bh 
Copyright © 1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 JANUARY 1964
Sthil

HCO (Sthil) LTD

CASE SUPERVISOR

The post of Auditing Supervisor is abolished since all instructors are doing auditing supervision as a training measure.

The missing action is that of Case Supervisor.

The Auditing Supervision done by all instructors quite rightly concentrates on student skill in auditing.

A Case Supervisor is needed, therefore, whose sole interest and concern is the advance of cases on the Saint Hill Briefing Course by any and various means.

The Case Supervisor will be instructed and supervised by the Course Supervisor in the marking of folders and handling various cases and will take over the full handling of case folders as soon as feasible.

All problems having to do with the individual cases of students, any and all auditing assignments and all individual case problems are to be routed to the Case Supervisor.

In all questions of what is to be run on a student, regardless of his situation in training, the word of the Case Supervisor, under the Supervision of the Course Supervisor, is final.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Executive Director
                                        	HCO (Saint Hill) Ltd

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

6402C04 SHSpec-4 Auditor Self-criticism

Enough of this goofing off as auditors and students.  The subject of self-criticism of auditing is very misunderstood, because it is too simple. LRH has been researching R6 [See p. 568, above.] during January, on the theory that it is better for him to get the body knocked off than for the rest of you to get it.  R6 is incredibly complex, but totally necessary.  You need very smooth basic auditing in order to make R6 work.

Self-criticism simply means taping your session, listening to it, and spotting what needs improvement.  One gets amazing responses to the question, “What happened in the session?” Self-criticism of auditing is vital from Level III on up.  The deeper you go into a case -- the more “reach” the processes have -- the more nearly perfect your basic auditing must be.  Flubs impinge to the same degree that the auditing does.  At Levels 0 and I, the auditor isn’t impinging very much.  Hence his flubs don’t impinge much either.  At Level II, with repetitive processing, there is more impingement and less tolerance of flubs.  At Level III, you are using the meter to reach deeper than the PC’s unaided itsa.  Here, we have moved into an area where we can get hold of things that the PC wasn’t ready to give.  There is more impingement, so the auditing must be better, since the flubs impinge more, too.  The greater the charge you are dealing with, the greater the bypassed charge can be.  The meter “mines” sub-itsa.  It increases the impingement of processing.  There is one thing that always happens when you run somebody above his level and get him into areas that he finds hard to confront:  You will get more BPC and ARC breaky sessions.  The level of impingement of an error is greater than a PC can tolerate, when the PC is audited above his level.  So up to Level IV, the best handling of an ARC breaky PC is to reduce his level.  This certainly doesn’t apply at Levels V and VI, where the BPC comes from a wrong goal, a wrong item, or whatever.  At these upper levels, reducing the PC’s level will just leave the wrongness, and the PC will go into a sad effect.  If you give a person a wrong goal, he will dramatize it more than the right goal.  This happens consistently in psychoanalysis.  “The only thing you get off a psychoanalyzed PC is psychoanalytic computations ... a bunch of bunk ... invented items.” A wrong goal doesn’t as-is; it beefs up.  Find the person’s right goal, and he will dramatize is less, which makes a somewhat goofy test for rightness of a goal.  A person tends to dramatize a validated error more than a genuine aberration.  Someone who has had errors validated also tends to be very careful all the time.  This comes from some old advice he got.  You can find the error by finding out what the person is being careful of.  If you scan someone through his psychoanalysis, you will turn on all his old symptoms.  If you keep it up, they will turn off by erasure.  Analysis cured its patients by inventing new evils: the id, etc.  It is an alter-is, a negative itsa.  Then analyse and examine things that never existed.  

An auditor can wrongly date a somatic.  Then a later auditor can date that somatic getting the same wrong date, and he can in fact get some improvement of the somatic, by getting off some of the charge of the somatic’s being wrongly dated.  But he may be deceived into thinking that he has the right date.  A person dramatizes a validated error more than an actual aberration that has been contacted.  If you find that the PC is selling something to you, do a case analysis:

1.  Find out where he got the idea; where he is sitting.

2.  Get his considerations off.

3.  Find out where it really is, or whether it is really true.

The reason why one attacks process errors in upper level processes instead of since mid-ruds is that everything that happened between sessions is sitting on top of the R6 error, and it is much quicker to find and correct the error than to do the mid-ruds. 

At Level IV, you are dealing with service facs, assessments, etc.  The PC has to be able to spot and as-is his own wrongnesses and overts by that time. By Level V, auditor errors impinge, and any piece of BPC left lying around will get restimulated.  At Level VI, the amount of charge you are handling, RI by RI, is huge and ferocious.  Now that the precisely correct commands have been formulated, you have gotten away from some ARC breaks.  But if the auditor fails to clear the command, it can act as giving the PC a wrong goal or item.  Or if the auditor fails to understand what the PC said, you can get immense ARC breaks.  For instance, the PC said the second RI from the bottom. The auditor thought it was the seventh RI that the PC was talking about.  He asks about the seventh RI to repair it.  The PC has a huge ARC break.  

New demands are placed on one’s basic auditing, as one moves up to higher levels.  So, as he moves up the levels, this can make the auditor feel as though he is auditing terribly.  The division into levels is primarily based on what is demanded of the PC and secondarily on what is demanded of the auditor.  But the two are almost parallel.  It is not possible to self-audit R6.  R6 requires the impingement of an auditor calling the items to get the charge off.  There is a point where a person becomes total cause over his own mind.  Up to that point, an auditor is necessary.  If you have an ARC breaky session, you can straighten it out by running O/W on the auditor to yourself. You are in perfect order to use assist-type processes on your own mind.  But solo auditing doesn’t produce TA action, because of the two-terminal nature of the universe.  In this universe, one terminal all by itself is inert.  A thetan has become so enmeshed in this universe that he has taken the physical universe laws to apply to himself.

There are two things that chain a thetan down:

1.  Mass, including space, energy, and time.

2.  Significance.  

Since 1950, we have known that someone could either dramatize nuttiness physically or in thought.  The mass gives you somatics, and the significance makes you think that you are nuts.  A GPM contains both thought and mass. When you get the right mass and significance aligned with other masses and significances, it vanishes, amazingly enough, as the thetan stops creating it.  It doesn’t dissipate into energy, although you do get heat.  It vanishes as a no-create, without fireworks.

If you keep changing only thought and not mass, you cannot make a change in someone’s condition.  You can’t handle the mass which is causing, e.g., an illness.  The levels are approaching the GPM by cleaning up charge on all the locks and ramifications that are hung up on GPM’s.  The levels are a familiarization with what could blow your head off.  At the very least, the levels familiarize the PC with heavy somatics.

The auditing cycle is the basic discovery of dianetics and scientology. All the way from Level 0 to Level VI you are using the same auditing cycle. This is a two-pole universe, and without an auditor, or if you don’t use the auditing cycle properly, you don’t get TA action adequate to a case resolution.  In comm courses, the comm cycle does things to people, all by itself.  It is so powerful that by itself, it produces results.  The auditor should recognize it as his main tool.  It has to be as polished as you have charge that can be bypassed on the case.  It has to be better and better as the auditor audits higher and higher levels.  “The auditor’s auditing must be adequate to the level he is running.  His handling of the auditing cycle is the only thing which is [creating] tone arm action.” Only somewhere in Level VII does the auditing cycle cease to be necessary.

If you haven’t got an auditor, you don’t have TA action.  If you haven’t got enough charge off your case, you won’t be able to do anything with it.  If an auditor is aware that his handling of the auditing cycle is the only thing that gets charge off the PC’s case -- because the auditing comm cycle is what makes him an auditor -- then he also knows that his auditing comm cycle must be adequate for the level he is auditing.  Auditor self-criticism allows him to see whether it is adequate.  You have a tendency to over-complicate the auditing comm cycle for the level you are running.  TR-2 is the most important, if not the only important, TR for a raw PC, since if you can let someone know that you have heard him, that you have really received his comm, you could get a big result.  The other TR’s have to come in as the PC progresses up the levels.

Here is the auditor self-criticism procedure:

1.  Do a normal session.

2.  Record it.  You should have 1 1/2 hours of tape, with the voices well discernable.  This is because the auditor’s error is always earlier than a rough spot in the session, so you want to be able to listen to a good stretch of time.

3.  As the session goes forward, the auditor notes BI’s in session very carefully: meter misbehavior, any criticism by the PC, dirty needles, any worry, etc.

4.  After the session, the auditor notices, in the session record, when in the session the BI’s, DN, etc. appeared.

5.  Listen to that area.

6.  Go backwards, bit by bit, a few inches at a time, to find the breakdown of basic auditing that caused the BI or DN.  This should be a few minutes or seconds earlier.

7.  Find what the auditor failed to communicate or carry out.

8.  Do that with every rough spot, every noted BI.  If you follow this procedure, you will find the errors and see that you didn’t get away with the breakdowns in your auditing cycle, although at the time you may have thought that you did.  You will find that if the PC snaps or snarls, there is a rough auditing comm cycle just before that.

“A PC never has a reaction in the session, independent of the auditor.” Anything that happens in a session, good or bad, happens with the auditor as cause.  The auditor is the source of the session, 100%.  LRH found that, as he moved up in levels of auditing, his auditing had to improve.  So other auditors can improve too.  Knowing what is wrong, one can put it right, both with one’s auditing cycle and with the PC at the time, before the ARC break hits:  “You’re as good an auditor as you can handle the communication cycle,” and you are as skilled an auditor as you can choose the right process to put onto the auditing comm cycle. 

6402C06 SHSpec-5 Comm Cycle in Auditing

The magic of communication is all that makes auditing work.  If you sat down at a one-hand electrode E-meter, You would be amazed at this fact:  You would get no tone arm motion beyond, perhaps, a brief residual flurry at the very start.  With another auditor, you would get 175 TA divisions; with yourself, you would get two.  It works this way because the thetan in this universe has begun to consider himself mass, so he is subject to the laws of physics.  Consequently, he can’t as-is much mass.  He has to have a second terminal to discharge the mass, or energy, against.  If an auditor thinks he is MEST, he is apt to get the condition of the PC, because he mocks up or envisions the PC’s charge in himself, making himself a matched terminal.  But that is not what makes auditing work.  It is all consideration.  No backflow actually hits the auditor.

The ability to hold a position in space or to hold two terminals apart, is a definition of power.  In the auditing situation, there is an apparent exchange of energy, from the PC’s point of view, which doesn’t hit the auditor, but because thetans think of themselves as terminals, you get an exchange of energy going on.  Nothing hits the auditor, and it as-ises, as far as the PC is concerned.  But you have set up a two-pole system, and that will bring about an as-ising of mass.  It isn’t burning the mass; it is as-ising the mass.  That is why there is nothing hitting the auditor.  The magic of auditing is contained in the comm cycle of auditing.  You are concerned with the smooth interchange between these two poles, which is necessary for as long as the PC considers himself to be matter and therefore considers that he must discharge against something.  Eventually, the PC will get up to a point where he no longer considers himself matter.  When a lot (half) of the bank is gone, the meter will no longer “read on a sneeze”.  When a PC cognites that he is not MEST, the auditor can’t knock any energy off, and the meter goes dead. Running R6, the meter only reacts when the PC decides what something is.  You have to ask the PC if that is it.  When the PC looks and decides if that is it or not, only then does the meter read.  The PC is advancing away from the automatic physical energy manifestations of the physical universe.  You get to a point where you have intention.

A GPM is just “a method of limiting the person’s ability to intend.” That is the whole idea behind implanting: to foul up intention by fixing it so that every time a thetan intends positive, he gets negative, and vice versa, so he can’t decide.  If you talk to a person, and every time he says, “Yes,” you say, “No,” he will get to an indecisional state of mind, where he can no longer intend, “Yes,” fully.  This wears him down; it breaks his spirit.  This is the whole idea behind implanting: to get a being unable to effectively intend or determine anything successfully.  “He intends to write, but something is intending that he not write.” Therefore, he can’t write.  All ideas of power of choice, self-determinism, etc., stem from the ability to intend something.  The more enMESTed someone is, the more trouble they have with intention.

(With the two-pole arrangement, a person can be influenced without his knowledge.)

The difficulties of auditing are just the difficulties of the comm cycle.  You can hit the parts of the comm cycle as buttons.  The auditor must permit a smooth flow between himself and the PC, if matter is to be as-ised by the PC, using the comm cycle.  When you don’t permit a smooth flow between yourself and the PC as terminals, you get a no-as-ising of matter.  Part of the trick is knowing what has to be as-ised, but that is a matter of technique.  If the auditor is capable of getting the PC to be willing to talk to him, he wouldn’t have to hit a particular button in order to get TA action.  Basic auditing and the comm cycle is senior to the technique.  The fundamental entrance to the case is not in tech, but in the comm cycle.  In case supervision, you can look at the points of the comm cycle that are missing in the PC’s case and heal those points up.  There can be the comm cycle between the PC and the auditor, and between the PC and the auditing room.  You can address the PC’s comm between himself and the environment by looking at what he is worried about.  With an unconscious person, pick up his hand and have him touch the pillow, your arm, etc., giving the command at the same time.  You are just getting him in comm with the auditor and his surroundings.  But now you are into technique.

“Communication is simply a familiarization process based on reach and withdraw.” When the auditor speaks to the PC, he is reaching; when he ceases to speak, he is withdrawing.  When the PC hears you, he is a bit withdrawn. He reaches towards you with the answer.  He is in a withdraw, as he looks for the answer.  He reaches the answer and reaches the auditor.  It is a communication exchange that as-ises energy and registers on the E-meter.  No meter action occurs in the absence of that exchange, namely the comm cycle. If the comm cycle isn’t in, the PC self-audits, and you get no case gain and no TA.

That is the fundamental discovery of dianetics and scientology.  It is so simple that everyone has overlooked it, because MEST is very complex stuff, being composed of atoms, molecules, wavelengths, etc.  It is so complex that nobody can understand it.  People who are ploughed into matter, who think as matter, think very complexly.  “They cannot observe the simplest things with which they are confronted.  They observe none of this.”

“The ease with which you can handle a comm cycle depends on your ability to observe what the PC is doing.” Your inspection of what you are doing should have ended with your training.  Now all observation should focus on the PC.” The comm cycle you watch is the PC’s.” The true touch of genius, that makes an auditor that can crack any case, is the auditor’s ability to observe the comm cycle of the PC and repair its various lacks.  This consists of asking a question that the PC can answer, observing that the PC has completed the answer to it, acknowledging the PC, and then giving the PC something else to do.  That is the auditing comm cycle.  [See also p. 450, above, for an illustration.] This includes clearing the auditing command, so that the PC can answer the question.  Ask the question in such a way that the PC can hear it. And know whether the PC is answering that question.  “You can tell when the PC is finished....[It is] a piece of knowingness, ... an instinct.” You should know, without having to ask the PC if he is finished.  Then, knowing that he is finished, you use the acknowledgment to tell him that he has said it, using only the right amount of stop to stop that cycle, not the whole session.  Then you give him something else to answer.  When you don’t see when he is finished and therefore fail to acknowledge, he thinks he is not done and looks for more.  He even takes up humming!  If you don’t give him something else to answer, he will go on automatic.  He will self-audit, with no TA action.  The degree of lack of TA action measures the degree of self-audit that the PC is indulging in.  Get your comm cycle good enough so that you don’t have to pay attention to it, and give your attention to the comm cycles of the PC.  Spend your basic auditing doing nothing but repairing the basic communication inabilities of the PC, and you will be a genius:  You will crack 99% of the cases that walk in.  For instance, the case that goes on and on with his comm.  You may think that you are acknowledging him, but he never gets it.  It is up to you to get that communication acknowledged, so he knows that it is heard.  Or take the PC who takes twenty minutes to answer the auditing question, and then, in that answering, doesn’t answer it.  The very smart auditor knows that he would have to do three processes, because:

1.  The PC cannot have an auditing question.  He didn’t answer it, so he never got it.  This gives you the first process: “What auditing question wouldn’t you mind being/should you be asked?”

2.  Since he can’t have auditing, he is wasting it, so after you have a comm line going, you can run wasting auditing.  Run it as a concept, since you can’t expect such a case to recall anything.  You could use: “Get the idea of you wasting auditing,” or “What could you do here that would waste auditing?”, or “What could an auditor do here that would waste auditing?” and maybe get him to waste communication.  Elementary havingness is the ability to do.

3.  Run, “Who would I have to be to audit you?”

4.  After that, perhaps you could work on his memory.  You would see the whole case change.

Take a PC who is sitting there not saying anything.  Find what the PC is doing and dream up something accordingly, e.g., “What could you say to me?” You get a long comm lag, then he says something.  Build it up until you’ve got him in communication with you.  Then inspect the rest of his comm cycle for other wrongnesses.  Maybe now you have to find out whether he can have an auditor.  It is what the PC isn’t doing that the auditor might be able to get him to do that determines the auditing question.  If you are alert, you will see these little disabilities showing up.  For instance, someone stammers. Obviously, he is having trouble communicating.

“Don’t ask the PC to do things the PC can’t do.”  For instance, the auditor asks, “From where could you view catfish?” The PC says, “Uh ... I’m sorry, I’ve never viewed any catfish.” The auditor has asked the PC a question he couldn’t answer.  He is guilty of not having cleared the question.  Clear questions beforehand to make sure the PC can do it, before asking it.  Always respect the PC’s saying that there aren’t any more answers.  Otherwise, you give the PC loses.  Your entrance point to the case is where the PC breaks down in his comm cycle with the auditor and with the environment.  For instance, if the PC can’t look at the auditor, you could run, “If you looked over here, what would (or might) you see?” These are the ways you crack cases.  There are tons of processes that you could use.

Suppose you are running SCS on a PC who, you find, can’t stand still. Don’t ignore the disability.  Take something else to remedy it, e.g. “Stand still/Don’t stand still,” which gets rid of automaticities.  If the PC knows that he has the disability, he can itsa about it, because it is real to him. But often what the person is worried about is not what he is bugged with.  You could still trigger the bank and run it out on an automaticity, as in dianetics, but then you would get a PC who gets better and doesn’t know about it.  PCs will run off a total automaticity of what is wrong with them, and they won’t even listen to themselves talk.

An auditing session is highly artificial.  But it is only artificial because it approximates, to such harsh, staggering reality, the exact points of contact with beings and existence, like a Lycoming engine in a Model T Ford.  Auditing highlights the exact important points of communication.

Here is a capsule version of what is wrong with the mind:  The only thing really wrong with people is that they have withdrawn from communicating.  The individual has gone out of contact.  He has stopped looking.  The last time he looked, there were three sabre-tooth tigers ready to bite him.  Of course, he believes that there are still three sabre-tooth tigers there.  He does this throughout enough trilennia, and he’s got an awful big stack of tigers, all of which have left.  But he doesn’t know this fact.  He can’t be sure that they have left.  A person who withdraws from contact with tigers all the time and refuses to contact the area doesn’t see whether the tiger is still there or not, but keeps mocking it up just to be sure.  The tigers, actually, are gone.  But this individual is in a condition of total withdrawal.  He is “safeguarded” with automatic bank, with automatic beingness.  A valence stands where he ought to be.  Total withdrawal is a capsule summary of aberration.  A thetan has, as his remedy for safety, shortening his reach.  When he gets to the point of zero reach, he inverts it, into an inverted withdrawal, and you get the cycle of the dynamics, coming on down.  He comes away from actual reach to zero reach, but he still has to reach, so he figures out some other way to reach.  A zero of what he is doing always has a remedy that is lower. So you can get an inversion of an inversion of an inversion of withdrawal.

This shows up in an auditing session right away, in the PC’s inability to talk to the auditor about pertinencies.  So you must remedy his communication by reaching him, in order to get him to reach.  With a person who is on a compulsive outflow, you have to get him there, before you can run anything, e.g. by “Touch that chair.” You have to have a session before you can have a technique.  This is how to get one: you use, observe, and remedy the communication cycle.  And after you have remedied it, notice that it has been remedied.  Note that the PC is now able to communicate with the auditor, and notice what else needs to be done.  Sometimes the remedy of the outpoint happens so fast that you are astonished.  Don’t overrun it.  If things are going all right, don’t remedy them.  If things are going all wrong, find what you can fix up and fix it up.  “If the PC is fully in session, you can run almost anything, and [he will] sail.”  But no technique by itself will put the PC in session.  The auditor has to do it.

6402C25 SHSpec-6 What Auditing Is and What It Isn’t

LRH is the first survivor of the Battle of the Goals Plot.  GPM’s contain trickery and treachery.  That is why no one, hitherto, has figured them out. Routine 3 didn’t bite deep.  Even running “oppose” didn’t get much depth of bite.  When you move it into “solve”, you are beginning to get into dangerous areas.  The tiger can bite your head off, but you can’t get back at him.  In R6, you are handling pure starving tigers.  [For definition of R6, see p. 568, above.] Someone who could handle the oppose line easily will find enough aberration to make a powerful being unpowerful on the actual GPM line, quantitatively and qualitatively.

The data of this lecture is valuable at all levels, but it is vital at Levels V and VI.  It is so simple that you may think that there is nothing there to grasp.  There is also confusion that blows off as one attempts to grasp it.  The following is a pure piece of data that is incredibly difficult to TR-3 over to somebody.  I am going to tell you:

1.  The difference between auditing and assessing.

2.  The difference between destimulating and erasing.

3.  The difference between a PTP and an ARC break.

4.  The targets of the auditor, which are:

a) The PC.

b) The bank.

The auditor speaks either to the PC or to the bank.  Auditing and the auditing cycle is addressed to the PC.  Assessing is addressed to the bank. When the auditor talks to the PC, he often restimulates the bank; he has an influence on it, but he is still talking to the PC.  Sometimes, during an assessment, the PC talks, and the auditor must acknowledge the origination, but these are separate actions.

Auditing ... has only two products: destimulation and erasure., [See also pp. 486-487, above, for illustrations of destimulation and erasure (or “discharge”).] You can get the PC out of it, or you can use the PC to wipe it out.  The first is destimulation; the second is erasure.  Destimulation gets the dogs that are barking at the PC to lie down and be quiet, and the PC to “come away from there”.  Auditing wipes out the dogs.  Don’t try to erase a PTP.  That requires auditing, and PTP’s prevent auditing.  You destimulate PTP’s, so that you can audit.  You can get the PC to dust himself off (destimulation), or you can use the PC like an ink eraser (erasure).  Some auditors specialize in trying to erase everything but never really get anything erased.  It is OK to erase anything, as long as you complete your cycles of action.  But the lower levels of auditing are practically all destimulation, not erasure.  If an auditor can’t destimulate a PC, he can never take up his own cycle of action, because the PC’s restimulation takes charge.  If the PC is elsewhere when you start the session and the cycle of action, you will never complete the cycle of action that you start. Destimulation is the only action that you can undertake to get a PC located and oriented.  Don’t try to audit, when all you should, or can, be doing is a destimulation.  “Where did it happen? Where are you now?” is a destimulation. So is a prepcheck.  Since an auditor can’t complete his cycle of action unless he first destimulates the PC, destimulation is a very important skill. Running engrams, RI’s, implant GPM’s, etc., are all erasure.  Even in destimulation, a tiny amount of erasure takes place.  Just the PC’s attention on the subject for a short time brings about erasure of a bit of it.  The fact that a certain amount of the incident runs out during destimulation is shown by the fact that a PC experiences somatics during assists.  We just hit the key-in [and erase that].  You can also destimulate something and then run out the incident.  You could use effort processing, or run the engram.  [Cf. running locks, secondaries, and engrams on subjects.] If you do this, though, complete the cycle of destimulating first, or you will leave some attention stuck on what you were destimulating, which, in the course of destimulating, you also restimulated somewhat.  Not completing the destimulation cycle will make it that much harder to erase what you wanted to erase.  You don’t want the PC to come out of a destimulation attempt involving Mata Hari with his feet still all tangled up in silk stockings and old German documents. Complete cycles of actions, once started.  If you start to erase something, erase it.  Don’t abandon it in order to go erasing something else.

In Level VI, ideally, when you get a GPM, you erase it.  This is complicated by the fact that that GPM is connected to the one above it and the one below it.  But you could erase the middle.  In practice, you consider the whole first series of goals one action and erase that, or half the first series, then the rest of it.  [See below, for an explanation of the goals series.]

“The heart of certainty is arrival [at the end of a cycle of action]. The anatomy of uncertainty is a failure to complete a cycle of action.”

Rapid methods of destimulation are necessary.  For instance, since-mid-ruds are needed to keep incipient BPC cleaned up and out of the road for the rest of the session.  Life is restimulative.  The purpose of ruds is destimulation.  When the PC brings up something that is not in the auditor’s main line of action, the auditor destimulates it and goes back to his main action.  Case analysis is the tech that destimulates unwanted resurgences of case.  Its purpose is handling PTP’s as they arise.  The activity of figuring out where GPM’s fit, which has been called case analysis, we now call track analysis.  Case analysis is a wide-level activity that can be used at any level.  It is just finding what the PC is sitting in and getting his considerations.  So while you are working on one GPM, if the PC gets his attention on another one, destimulate it with case analysis and go back to the first action.  Otherwise. leaving him stuck in one mass, you let him go to another mass, and he will get over-restimulated.  The rule applies to all levels.  Make up your mind about what you are doing and complete your cycle of action.

What is auditing?  Auditing is “the action of asking a PC a question which he can understand and answer, getting an answer to that question, and acknowledging him for that answer.” And then also, when the person originates, auditing involves understanding and handling that origination.  That is all auditing is.  It is TR-0, 1, 2, 3, and 4.  When that occurs, TA action occurs and sanity occurs.

Auditing is not assessing.  Auditing may have the purpose of making someone feel better, but that has nothing to do with the definition of auditing or with what auditing is.  The fact that someone feels better after an assessment does not mean that it was auditing.  Therefore, from the above definition, you can’t have self-auditing.  “The technique is scientology, but auditing is this one ... action.” If you understand the above to apply to all auditing, you will be fantastic as an auditor.  You will find gold at the end of the rainbow.  Nothing is very difficult about getting a result, if you just do what is in that definition.  What makes the PC better is not the technique you use.  It is simply the auditing comm cycle.  “Auditing is a cycle of action....  And that two-terminal aspect, which is what this physical universe consists of, is what gives you tone arm action and is what makes a PC better. It’s not a technique that makes a PC better, and it never will be.... Auditing is the “carrier wave’ ... that handles anything and everything” for the PC.

There is another activity an auditor can do, besides auditing: assessment.  Auditing goes mainly to the PC; “assessment never goes to a PC.” It goes to the bank.  Therefore, by definition, it is not auditing.  You can never assess a PC who thinks that he is being addressed.  If you are trying to assess and the PC is trying to communicate with you, or if he thinks that you are trying to communicate with him, you will get messed up.  When the auditing cycle is out, assessment cannot occur, in that the PC hasn’t understood that it is not an auditing cycle that he is engaged in, and he can’t just sit there and be assessed.  He is nervous and restimulated, and his mind is darting all over the place.  Even so, if you ask the question just where the mind is, it reads, through all his mental busy work.

R2H is not really an assessment, even though you go down a prepared list, because you are really asking the PC those questions, and setting up 2WC about things that have occurred in the comm cycle.  If a PC gets ARC broken during an assessment, it is because he has originated something, which you haven’t acknowledged.  He does not get ARC broken because you are assessing. Sometimes you sandwich auditing in with the assessment, but they are still two separate activities.  The TA action that you get when you find an actual RI occurs when you have an auditing cycle going.  It does not occur without the auditing cycle.  An assessment, even of a correct RI, is not what gives TA action.  It is the auditing comm cycle that gives TA.  That is why, when you ask, “Is that your item?”, you get TA action, in the form of a big blowdown. It is not because the PC contacts the item.  He is already in the middle of it.  So on solo auditing, the PC would get needle actions but not TA action. Assessment doesn’t give you TA action.

An ARC break assessment is given when the PC has an ARC break.  This assessment list has other uses, but the ARC break assessment simply consists of assessing the list, getting the read, and indicating it to the PC.  During an ARC break, you must not audit!  “An ARC break is when the auditing comm cycle cannot take place....  It isn’t anything else.” The PC is upset and accusative.  He won’t talk to you.  If you force a comm cycle at that time, you will only deepen the ARC break.  At that point, you do nothing else but an ARC break assessment.  When you have a real ARC break, you assess it, always. Know your tools so that you can do the right assessment, whether it be a session ARC break or an ARC break from the particular action that you are on.

As long as you are addressing, with auditing, an area of disability in the PC, you will get TA. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1964
CenOCon
METER READS, SIZE OF

It occasionally comes to my attention that auditors entering Classes V and VI do not believe a meter can be made to read big.

They settle for ticks, tiny falls, etc, of the sort that can be found usually in getting Mid Ruds in. In all auditing up to Class V the usual meter needle read is around an eighth to a quarter of an inch long at sensitivity 16.

The Mark V is designed to give good serviceable reads for the lower classes of auditing and is quite wonderful at it.

But the moment you enter the wide vistas of Class V, the whole character of meter needle behaviour changes, you go from tiny read to big read.

In Classes V and VI tiny reads are used only for Mid Ruds as they were in lower levels. But in all work in goals, Case Analysis, plotting, finding items, checking things out, etc, reads are enormous.

A new horizon of metering dawns and an auditor coming up through the lower levels, entering Class V and VI work just doesn’t believe it. Most of his early mistakes in checking out goals or finding the wrongnesses are entirely based on this. He thinks a tiny read is enough and he uses it. Whereas he really must never use a small read for this work.

If a goal is a real GPM it will read with great, intermittent, inconsistent slashes. If an analysis of a situation is brought to the right answer, the meter needle falls hugely.

The trouble is that the auditor just doesn’t press on looking for the right answer and settles for ticks—because he can’t think up the right combination. The right combination “No GPM” or “Lock on an Implant” will send the needle racing.

All mistakes on goals or situations in Classes V and VI can be traced to a failure to appreciate that metering is different at these levels.

The sensitivity at Class VI has to be kept around 4. You only use sensitivity 8 or 16 to get in Since Mid Ruds. On all R6 work you shut the meter down. You can’t keep the needle at Set if you use a sensitivity higher than 4.

Here’s a Class V or VI student fiasco, based on using Class III expected meter behaviour on high level work:

Auditor finds goal on list that ticks (1/8”). Asks if it’s the correctly worded goal. Gets a tick ( 1/16”). Runs it on the pc. Pc collapses.

Here’s the real way it should have been: Auditor finds goal on list that only ticks. Gets in Suppress and Invalidate on the list. Re-nulls. Finds another goal. Gets in Suppress on it. Gets a third of a dial instant slash (all goals and items must Instant read). Checks it out until he gets a 3” prior slash on Actual GPM. Gets a 2” slightly latent or prior slash on “correctly worded”. Gives it to the pc and pc thrives.

It’s not asking the right question (what it really is) that gives you ticks.

In fact a tick with a sharp edge at Class V or VI really means “wrong question asked” !
Big reads are the only reads you buy at Class V and VI. Learn the right questions to ask about the character or nature of what you’re examining and you get the big falls, RRs, etc.

So it’s a lack of knowledge of Track Analysis that makes the auditor fall back on small reads. And he’ll fail.

The second stage of desperation enters at Class V and VI when the student, hammered by the instructors, still can’t get big reads (through lack of knowledge of the track and what things can be).

The student then abandons all he knew about body motion causing needle reaction. The quickly exhaled breath, the shuffled feet, the can fling about, the stretch, the can bang, all cause big surges. So the auditor encourages the pc to shout goals and items or fling himself about so the meter will react big.

This, of course, will spin the pc, getting no charge off, running wrong goals and RIs.

By the time the student auditor is trained not to take body motion, shout or breath reads, his Track Analysis has also improved and he starts to ask the right questions and gets his big reads with the pc quiet as a lamb.

I never touch a TA during the pc’s body movement. This loses TA, of course, since a pc is most likely to move when an RI starts to discharge. I never buy a goal unless I’ve seen it Instant read, bang on the last letter. I never ask the character of anything to Instant read, i.e. “Is this an Implant GPM”, because it may go on anticipate or arrive latent.

And do I get TA on the pc! In goals finding and plotting you don’t expect much TA. Yet in six consecutive sessions I built TA a few divisions more per session, from 70 TA down divisions to 103 TA down divisions in 2l/2 hour session, and all by never buying a tick, only big RRs or falls. Gradual build of TA shows all is well.

So Classes V and VI are not only big read classes, but they are big TA classes as well.

As you are handling the basic sources of charge on a case in Classes V and VI, you expect big meter behaviour and you get it.

Only ignorance of the track keeps the auditor in the small read, small TA departments.

If you keep on trying to get what it really is until you have it, you will always see a big read on what it is.

You wouldn’t expect to handle high voltage wires with tiny sparks. You would expect huge arcs to crackle. Similarly with the materials of Classes V and VI.

If you don’t believe a meter will read big at Classes V and VI, then you haven’t learned yet to find the right things and ask the right questions.

And if you settle for ticks or have to make the pc yell items to get big reads you’ll soon have a very messed up case on your hands.

So it’s a different meter behaviour at the higher classes. Expect it, look for it and make it READ!

LRH:dr.bh							L RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1964	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6403C03 SHSpec-7 Auditing and Assessment

The most complete body of knowledge there is is at Class VI.  It took fantastic amounts of auditing to get it and codify it.  Fortunately, it is codified, unlike other levels.  For instance, prehav levels are mostly items out of actual GPM’s or locks thereon.

You are used to regarding assessment as something you use to find something to audit.  More recently, you have regarded assessment also as a way to find the source of an ARC break.  “Assessment is an activity which is totally independent of auditing.”  As you move up from Class IV, you find that assessment commingles with auditing.  ARC breaks can occur because of the auditor’s failure to recognize the difference between assessment and auditing, and failing to shift his gears from one to the other, or schizophrenically trying to do both at the same time.  You must keep them separate.  For instance, if the PC originates during your assessment, you must instantly shift into an auditing cycle to handle it.  Then you return to the assessment.

“Assessment is addressed to the PC’s bank.  It is not addressed to the PC.”  When auditing occurs during the assessment, it is because the PC got restimulated by something assessed.  So the PC is now in need of an auditor to duplicate it, so that it can as-is.  The auditor must really understand, duplicate, and acknowledge, so that the PC knows that he has been understood. All bad assessing, where the meter isn’t operating properly, comes about because the auditor can’t shift gears smoothly and rapidly enough, between auditing and assessing.

An auditor can get the idea that assessment is impossible, if he has made mistakes in assessing that resulted in the needle tightening up.  The failure, in this case, is really an auditing failure, e.g. the auditor’s inadvertent question of the PC, “Is it all right if we assess this list?”, an auditing question, since it has not been fully handled, will now get in the way of a successful assessment, in some cases.  The question went to the PC, an analytical being.  The PC now expects to answer.  He may also be insufficiently indoctrinated not to think that he should answer the assessment questions too.  But if you don’t complete the question cycle, you tend to direct the rest of the assessment at the PC, not the bank.  Now the PC feels as though he should be answering each item assessed.  You will be assessing through the PC’s withheld comm.

When the auditor starts to assess, many PCs go on an automatically withholding state of mind.  They got into this state of mind because the auditor disobeyed certain tenets, e.g. the rule that when you ask the PC a question before you assess, you should be sure that the PC has answered it to his satisfaction and that he gets acknowledged, and that everything is handled first, before you start the assessment.  And when you have assessed and have gotten an item, and you ask the PC, “Is that your item?”, this is an auditing question, which may take awhile for the PC to answer.  You have just put him into the middle of his long-standing whirlpool, so don’t be amazed if it takes awhile for him to complete the cycle.  He could be going, “Yeah: Yeah:  That’s why ... etc., etc., etc.,” without having answered the question, Is it your item?.”

“Assessment must never interrupt the auditing cycle, but the auditing cycle may at any time interrupt the assessment....  Therefore the auditing cycle is the senior action.”  That doesn’t mean that you necessarily spend more time auditing than assessing in any given session, especially in R6. Auditing is senior because auditing errors can wreck assessment.

The auditor has two lines going out: one to the PC and one to the bank. When these lines cross, you get sparks.  In assessing, you might use the form, “Is it ... ?”, which has the form of a question.  But don’t expect an answer, during the assessment.  There is no one home in the bank.  Don’t fool around with entities.  Using questions in assessments can bother a PC.  Sometimes it works better to use statements, so as not to make the PC think that he should answer.  “You won’t get any reaction from the bank if the PC intervenes,” but you don’t want the PC on a withhold or a decision not to be involved or something that gets in the way.  The PC has to sit there with his ruds in and no co-operative “assistance”, and in good comm with the auditor, if his bank is to be addressed.  Keep in comm and keep your cycles complete.  If the PC is in good comm with the auditor, you can then address the bank easily. Therefore, the way to put yourself in good comm with the bank is to put yourself in comm with the PC.  But the PC being in good comm doesn’t have to mean that the PC is talking.  The auditors who assess PCs well are those who are in good comm with the PCs.  Repairing assessments, when what is wrong is out-comm, will make things far worse.  It invalidates things found on assessment, etc.  If assessment goes out, repair the comm cycle.  Don’t just look for BPC in general.  Clean up the comm cycle.

On any case, there is always BPC to be found.  That doesn’t mean that you should spend much time looking for it.  You could spent a lot of time trying to clean the question, “Have I misassigned the bypassed charge?”, because the read you would keep getting is from your assigning the BPC to bank phenomena, not session outnesses.  It could go on reading for twelve hours:  In the presence of a session ARC break, you can go on finding other BPC continually without the PC feeling any better.  And you will invalidate and suppress all sorts of auditing work that was done.  So “ARC break assessments should begin with, ‘Is it a session ARC break? Is it an R6 ARC break?  Or is it an R4 ARC break?” It can be as crude as, “What list do I use....”  Present-time upsets always seem more important to the PC than past events, however tremendous the past events may be.

(Never use heavy steel electrodes.)
Ninety-nine percent of your assessment trouble is really auditing cycle trouble.  Assessment errors, themselves, can be so productive of upset that the fact that there can be another source of ARC breaks can easily be ignored.  Even with the comm cycle in perfectly, with the auditor and the PC in complete rapport, the session can go up in smoke because of an assessment error, especially on a wrong goal.  For instance, if the PC’s item has been bypassed, all you should do, if the PC ARC breaks, is to assess.  Don’t try to WC it with the PC.  “You must not audit [or] address remarks to the PC in the presence of an ARC break....  You never ask the PC a single question, nor do you acknowledge anything the PC says.”  Experience has taught me that you cannot communicate with somebody who is out of communication.  Don’t audit in the presence of an ARC break.  Don’t ask a question; don’t acknowledge what the PC says.  You assess.  If you get confused and go into shock when the PC suddenly throws the cans at you, take a break.  That is better than sitting there, slack-jawed.  Don’t stay near the PC.  Don’t try to talk to the PC. Get your wits sorted out, find where the ARC break started, and go assess. Find the BPC, indicate it.  Get back in comm with the PC, and go on doing what you were doing.  “The meter will read during an ARC break, [but only] on what is causing the ARC break.”  If you find some BPC on a case ARC break list and the PC doesn’t go VGI’s, know that there is something else.  There is a session ARC break or some different case ARC break.

R2H can be done either as an ARC break assessment or as an assessment for BPC, where you stay in comm with the PC during the assessment.

Everything from Level IV on up depends on accurate assessment.  So the auditor must be able to shift rapidly and smoothly from assessment to auditing.  Just because R6 is mostly assessing, don’t think that you can delete auditing from the session.  If you try, you will have a disaster.

“You assess when you assess.  You audit when you audit....  Don’t ever do them both at the same time....  Assessing is straight from ... auditor to bank.”

6403C05 SHSpec-8 Case Analysis -- Healing

Ian Tampion audited PCs on TV for the benefit of the Victoria legislature, at some hearings in Australia.  This is the ultimate TVD! The legislators were very interested.

LRH has started running his goals plot:  the research activities have left holes in his bank.

There are [about 350] different goals series, in sets of 42.  Since the same things went in, over and over, if you run one too deeply, you can drop through into the next series.  You also get awful somatics if you do this.  The goals series are consecutive, and it just goes in, over and over again, with different GPM’s.  Same line plot; same goal series.  They just go on and on. So if you run out one, you are convinced that you couldn’t possibly have run it out, because it is sitting on one of the same GPM’s of an earlier series, so it looks like all the goals are still alive, there.  So if you run one too deep, you fall through, into an earlier goals series.  So you can leave BPC by going on to the earlier one, which gives you bad somatics.  You’ve got 42 goals in a series, for a total of 15,000 GPM’s.  They get bigger and bigger as you go back.  Early track RI’s are about the size of a mountain.  If you don’t get the first (PT) series right, the PC will go into a sad effect of great magnitude with great speed.  It will take only four or five seconds, from where where you found the wrong GPM to start from, to the toboggan.  This can happen because you may well not have completed the current series.  Only some of the 42-goal series closest to PT is formed [because the current series has not yet been completed].  Therefore it is easy to fall back into the next series.  Also, the PT GPM itself is truncated, so you can get the first actual goal, but it is hard to get the first actual GPM.  Everyone has the same actual line plot in common.  We learned our lesson well before the track began.

The consequences of running these GPM’s out of order and with wrong line plots are pretty horrendous, which is why we are not broadly releasing the line plots.  Incidentally, there are no 2D goals on the actual GPM line plot, as far as LRH has been able to tell.  There are plenty of implant goals on the 2D, however.

Case analysis tells you how to become a healing wizard and upset the AMA.  Man has no real tradition of healing.  There is a lot of charlatanism. The AMA is into plumbing, not healing, anyway.  Of course, doctors are necessary -- like plumbers.  They never reveal their stats, or -- not often enough.  You hear that 600 people have received kidney transplants.  What you don’t hear is that all of them were dead within two years.  Previous attempts to heal overts have consisted of things like calling for repentance.  This is not an adequate process.  Man got healing closely associated with structure and became successful, where structure is concerned.  He knew nothing of disease.  Infection may or may not have to do with bacteria.  There are too many variables to say for sure.  The fact that you can see the bugs under a microscope is insufficient.  LRH has found that infection many be the result of a GPM.  Healing is done by the body.  The doctor merely arranged the parts so that they could go back together and hoped that the individual would do the rest.  Until you have solved the problem of how the individual influences his own healing process, you can do nothing broadly about healing.  So the healing professions have tended to be monopolists or frauds.  The modern medicos and psychiatrists have gone towards a monopoly.  They have also made research a lucrative profession, but they tend to keep the door shut on a real search into healing by others, not part of their club.  Authority has become “fact”  in courtrooms.  We don’t communicate with the medicos, not so much because they are evil as because they have certain stylized ways of thinking into which we do not fit.  They use research as a way of raising money, which is another incomprehensible.  We would have been incomprehensible anyway, because we have gone forward on the basis that there is such a thing as truth, and that using what we know of it, we can help our fellow man.

Our real goals as scientologists are unreal to the public, so there has to be a bridge.  We do want some way to bridge in to the fellow on the street.  Healing can be a part of the lower part of such a bridge, because it is real to people.  Freedom from psychosomatic illness is something that we can produce easily at lower levels, even though healing isn’t our main interest.  This makes the monopolists attack us.  The second thing that we need to know about healing is: if you are going to heal, heal.  Don’t heal “in order to _______ .”  You would gain great acceptance in a community if you worked on that, avoiding or handling the attacks of the monopolists, and escaping the wrath of the frauds.

If you do go in for healing someone, make sure that you also teach him a little and broaden his horizon beyond his goal of getting rid of his lumbosis.  You do have a technology for healing any chronic disease or illness, provided that you can read a meter and keep the auditing comm cycle going.  A chronic disease is a disease that exceeds its expected duration. But don’t assume that because you can see that someone is sick from something, you should heal it.  To say what someone is suffering from is very adventurous.  The person’s mental mechanisms can bring about and perpetuate virtually anything.  Actually, all illness is psychosomatic, even broken bones.  It shows poor judgement to put one’s body in a position where its bones can be broken, after all.  The genus of psychosomatic illness is in suggestion [the hypnotic variety].  And suggestion comes down to postulation. Nothing can be suggested to the individual [with any effect] that he has not earlier postulated himself.  Thus an overt would be to key in something that the person had already postulated for himself.  The person must have willed the destruction of bodies before he could get his body in bad shape.  It really isn’t what has happened to a person that brings about a psychosomatic illness.  It is what the person is willing to have happen [e.g. to another]. But it is neither possible nor necessary to trace a psychosomatic illness back to the individual’s basic intention to have it, to cure a psychosomatic illness.  Though all psychosomatic illnesses are self-caused and stem from early thetan postulates, the key-in of such an illness can be other-determined.  He doesn’t have to have a key-in to make his postulates come true, but when one of his early postulates sometimes mysteriously materializes in the physical universe and he doesn’t know anything about it, it is necessary for something else around him to key it in.  He did it himself and knew he did.  But if it is happening and he doesn’t now know that he did it himself, it must be the result of a key-in.  Hypnotism, for instance, is merely a key-in of a person’s earlier postulates.  [Cf. HCOB 10Aug73 “PTS Handling”]

To keep an environment calm, you must be careful of what gets keyed in. For instance, a war environment is restimulative enough to cause the keying in of a lot of brutality.  A thetan is unbelievably numerously pre-postulated!! With 15,000 GPM’s, each containing 16 RI’s, with locks galore, there is lots to be keyed in.

So when you heal psychosomatics, you are not dealing with the thetan’s basic postulations, unless you are auditing at Levels V and VI.  Below Level V, basic postulates are out of reach of the thetan.  They are neither necessary nor possible to use, in handling psychosomatic illness.  It is fortunate that you don’t require them.

Here are the steps in the formation of a psychosomatic illness:

1.  The thetan postulates it, i.e. he postulates that it could be done or that it could happen.  This was trillenia ago, probably.

2.  Then he did it to someone else.

3.  Then he could and did have it keyed in on himself, and he got the experience.  

The key-in could be anything.  It could be something quite mild:  a symbol, for instance.  Step (1)would be taken up at Level VI if anywhere.  But trying to handle illness at Level VI is too restimulative.  Someone who is sick is probably not up to any part of it, and you don’t do Level VI partially, anyway.  Handling Step (2), getting the basic overt on the track, is equally a matter of going ‘way back and is therefore probably impossibly difficult to get at.

But you can easily handle Step (3), picking up the key-in in PT, which is some tiny motivator or a small overt that keys in the big overt, and you can make the person well by using it.  To cure somebody, find the most recent key-in that you can get your hands on, or “the latest overt on that subject.” [Again, Cf. HCOB 10Aug63 “PTS Handling”] Don’t try to heal with heroic methods.  Take care of the key-ins, even though you know, correctly, that there is far, far more behind it.  You want the lightest key-in that you can approach.  By the nature of the case, you won’t be able to reach that big postulate, until the case as a whole is up to Level VI.  Try to pick up the key-in that is as close to present time as you can get, not as far back as you get.  If the recent key-in is too heavy to confront, e.g. if it is something three lifetimes ago, you can even pick up the key-in of the key-in.  Go easy; use a feather duster:  The lightest of methods is what succeeds in healing. Curing bunions is not the same game as restoring to a being his full powers. But it is a useful skill, and a very “lightly-lightly” one.  You are not trying to get to basic.  The “heroic” measures indulged in by desperate doctors are just physical dramatizations of a needless search for basic. Cutting out the brain to handle things is the effort to arrive at prime postulate dramatized as a physical action.

The mystery is how something can be keyed out.  But it can, and it heals the PC to do so.  He is likely to get the somatic back when he gets up to Level VI, but there, you will be running it out.

6403C09 SHSpec-9 Summary of Lower Levels

There has to be a bridge between Level 0 and Level V.  Level V is becoming a catch-all level of everything necessary before Level VI.  We are in danger of getting up to the esoteric levels of VI and leaving no bridge, resulting in thirty to forty OT’s and nothing else.  Someone off the street is in no position to recognize any part of an actual GPM.  “Scientology progresses on reality....  The lower levels are the contest of achieving reality.” You have to achieve a reality before you can make anyone better. There has to be a bridge to clearing.  “It’s done by gradients.” The PC must be walked from a position of no-recognition of reality through recognition of some reality, eventually to an ultimate reality, by gradients.

If you skip a step in a gradient, you get an unreality.  Unreality is associated with charge.  They are the same thing.  An RI that is too overburdened with charge (inval, suppress, etc.) will be unrecognizable to the PC, no matter how obvious it may be to the auditor.  A person with too much charge on his case can’t understand or achieve reality.  He must have reality and understanding to go free.  Understanding is related to reality, per the ARC triangle.  Therefore, understanding is related to charge, which you have to get off a case first in order to clear it.  Someone who has got lots of charge will do very silly things.  Stupidity comes about from charge, i.e. unreleased, unresolved, stored masses of energy.  For this reason, you can’t get a person to solve his problems by mere significance.  The significances don’t enter into it.  It is a person’s overcharged environment that makes a person too stupid to solve his problems.

The way out of the problem of not having a bridge is to attain consistency of result.  It breaks an auditor’s heart for results to vary from PC to PC.  To get a consistent result and to get a reliable bridge to clear, you have to attack the common denominator of aberration in all PCs, not the particular quirks of particular PCs.  Otherwise, results won’t be consistent. And the least common denominator of all aberration is charge.  If charge is what causes stupidity, then obviously what we should attack is charge.  So the lower levels, Levels 0 through IV, have to be aimed at getting off charge, in the absence of any ability on the part of the PC to face the actual source of the charge and erase it.  We can’t get anything but trouble from trying to put the PC into the actual cause of the charge.  So, at the lower levels, you don’t erase much charge.  You get the PC out of the charge.  Destimulation is what we must aim for at Levels 0-IV, so that the PC will be moved out of masses of charge.  We destimulate by attacking key-ins.  We are not trying to get rid of the charge.  We are trying to pull the person out of it.  The person can’t recognize the actual goal until he is separated from the key-ins that stupefy him.  To get the pea under the mattresses, i.e. the bank under the key-ins and upsets, you have to move the mattresses out of the way. [Another analogy:  There is a drain at the bottom of a murky pool.  The PC can’t see it or find it, but he can drown trying.  What you have to do is to clean away most of the water and guck.  Then the PC can find the drain and let the water and muck drain off.]

You have to understand an RI for it to blow, since it is a thought, not the symbols that represent it in English.  That is why session ARC breaks, inval, or whatever can prevent RI’s from blowing.

Life is all jammed up for a person with RI’s and GPM’s.  “The guy with his attention gruesomely and howlingly concentrated on some little [tiny piece of mattress ticking (see above) must be shown that he can do something about the mattresses.] He can do something about it, and he gets a big reality and a hope factor, and his confidence resurges on this basis:  if he could get his attention off just one [piece of mattress ticking] for a few minutes, it would make him feel so different and so interestingly alive, compared to how he has felt, that now he gets a big upsurge in reality, and you can get him to tackle [a lot more].  You’ve got a gradient.”  In some cases, the environment is so charged that the person can’t take any attention off of it.  In this case, you have to give the person a change of environment, to a non-restimulative environment.  Here is an analogy:  Say you have a lion tamer faced with four ferocious lions, and all he has is a weak chair, and he is running out of blank cartridges.  You are trying to interest him in a bite-proof suit, but he can’t put any attention on it.  You have to handle the lions first, lion by lion, and then sell the overwhelmed trainer the lion-proof suit.  [This would be a Type 3 PTS handling.]

The next level up, above total overwhelm [Level I] is the person who is so engrossed in his PTP’s that he is obsessively solving everything, solving his PT.  Such a person goes around with wild strings of sol5ti/.s i. hi1 haadann the time:  “If I do ... I could ... and so-and-so wouldn’t ... and then I’d ... and they’d ..., etc.”  His solutions are so pyramided that you don’t dare touch any corner of the pyramid, or the lot will collapse.  You can handle this PC by using your lowest level of actual processing, with itsa on solutions, which takes over the automaticity of it.  [See above, on auditing problems and solutions, as well as 6404C21 SHSpec-17 “Problems and Solutions”, below.]

Level II is the first processing level.  It contains repetitive processes and objective processes.  Here, there is a danger of restimulating GPM’s, unless you use only things that are not in actual GPM’s.  Is there something that isn’t in an actual GPM and can therefore be processed with impunity? Yes.  Nouns and most pronouns.  Some pronouns are in goals, but at Level II you are far enough from the GPM that pronouns are generally safe.  But farther along, you had better avoid such pronouns as “myself”.  “I” appears as a rare item in GPM’s, also.

But nobody has goals in the form, “To be a (noun).”  Nowhere in GPM’s do you have noun terminals and oppterms.  there are only “-nesses”, “-ities”, and “-tions”: adjectival and adverbial forms.  So you can process noun terminals with impunity.  “Think of a communication,” would perhaps lead you straight into a GPM.  “Think of a communicator,” would not.  That is the missing secret of why the twentieth ACC made clears.  Nouns were processed in brackets. Nouns can only be locks.  Therefore, when you process them, you get key-outs. You would key out actual GPM’s by keying out locks on RI’s.  Adding a pronoun or a noun can make an unsafe process safe.

What is an actual GPM or an actual RI?  It is a mass with significance. That is what you need to know at Level IV.  Therefore a key-in is and will always be a mass with significance -- almost anything, in short, that you could think of.  So masses with significances key in actual GPM’s, which is why an environment is restimulative.  PT is one huge mass of restimulators. Present time is a haunted area!

It is not the significance that keys in the GPM or the RI.  [So to key one out, you have to get masses plus significances.] If you have an actual RI with a significance and someone keeps throwing the significance at you, it will key you in.  So a process like, “How could you help?/How could I help?” would throw the PC into the RI.  To make it safe, you have to put in “ ... help you (or me),” so that you’ve got a mass plus significance.  Running masses with significance is important because, since masses with significance key in actual GPM’s, running them keys out actual GPM’s.  At Level I, the mass with significance that the PC gets accustomed to is the auditor.  “Recall a terminal,” would be a good process.  ARC straightwire works because, and as long as, you have a terminal, a pronoun like “someone” or “something” in it. And for the same reason, you can prepcheck a mass that has a significance, as long as it’s there and you are running it.  You can run it in brackets, etc. At Level II, you have the PC do objective processes.  This fact, plus the fact that control, communication, and havingness contain basic laws of life, make 8C a high-level workable process.  The laws of life, like control, communication, and havingness, are senior to GPM’s.  But it is the wall that makes 8C workable.  It was the wall which, since it was a mass with a significance, had keyed in actual GPM’s.  So when you get the PC familiar with the wall, the wall keys out and the GPM destimulates.  The auditing cycle itself is helpful and beneficial, as well.  The auditing cycle is probably the basic process that makes Level II.

The PC’s awareness of the auditor as a friendly, helpful mass with a significance is also destimulative.  This awareness of the auditor tends to destimulate masses in general for the PC.  Furthermore, the auditor is not just a mass with significance but also involves a hope factor.  This is a two-pole universe, as Bucky Fuller once taught LRH in Elizabeth, N.J.  The two-pole nature of communication showed up when LRH tried solo auditing himself on a line plot.  He could go through it, but there was no TA.  One terminal gives no TA.  One terminal plus a thousandth of a terminal gives a bit of TA, etc.  The auditor has to be real to the PC for there to be a session and TA.  Early on, this isn’t true, so it is up to the auditor to remedy the unreality of the auditor to the PC [i.e. to help the PC to find the auditor].  Reality should increase with auditing.

A new process introverts the PC enough, so that at first the auditor is less real to the PC.  So at first, you could get less TA than when the PC gets used to the process.  Early on, the PC is so charged up that he has no reality on any other terminals, and there is no terminal for him to discharge against.  He is a mobile standing wave.  Such an “only one” gets no TA, since there is no one else around.  Charge has accumulated on this PC to the point where no other terminal exists.  He is trapped in the standing wave of no-flow.  This is an animated standing wave that blocks all incoming and outgoing flow.  The PC is stuck in a series of wins or loses.  He has lost a terminal that he could talk to, so he solves it by being in continuous communication with that terminal.  Now, if people aren’t that terminal, they are nobody.  Or, he wasn’t in comm with that one either.  He mustn’t be there and he mustn’t communicate.  There are tremendous key-ins involved here.  To get TA, we would have to rehabilitate other-terminal-ism.  At Level II, we would do it with pronouns, since we can’t assess for terminals.  At Level III, you would assess by observation, discussing things on a list with the PC and getting all his considerations.  You don’t do much with the assessment.  This applies to R3SC slow assessment and R2C, assessment by dynamics, etc.

Along with a terminal, we get a period of time.  Time is very important, to the degree that you can destimulate a somatic by dating it.  This works because “all restimulation depends on a mistake in time.”  The PC thinks that the time something occurred is now.  His head hurts in 1964, because he got clobbered in 1944.  The basic lesson that you are trying to teach about engrams is that the PC’s time is awry.  The only thing that fouls you up in handling an incident by just dating the incident and having it blow is the fact that it has already been wrongly dated, e.g. the PC already wrongly dated it.  You can find the date of the wrong dating.  You can find what the wrong date was.  There can be several wrong dates.  Then you can find the actual date on which the incident occurred.

In view of the fact that you cannot easily run terminals that have not been accurately assessed, we can use this time factor at Level III, especially if an assessment has been done by a higher-level auditor, to get something to run in Problems Intensives, which involve getting the time of the incident, terminals, etc.

[Problems Intensive is explained above, and in HCOB 9Nov6l “The Problems Intensive -- Use of the Prior Confusion”.]

We have made Class IV a clearing level.  It is an assessment-type process to make a keyed-out clear, using prepchecks.  You use R3.  Do a list of the PC’s goals, find one that stays in.  So what if it is an implant goal or a wrong goal?  It stayed in.  Do a terminals list for that goal.  Both goal and terminal lists should be short lists, listed to a clean needle.  You don’t get somatics from wrong goals.  You get them from right goals that are suppressed or invalidated.  So you list for the terminal with, “Who or what would have (the goal)?” Find a terminal that is a noun, then prepcheck it up to a point of high-level cognition or no more TA.  Then do another goals list, and find another terminal.  This cycle, repeated, will give us a clear, by keying out the actual GPM.  Keep the goals lists for later on.  You could use higher-classed auditors to do the assessment steps.

The only thing that can key in an actual GPM is a mass with a significance.  So prepchecking the mass plus significance tends to key out the locks that keep the GPM connected to PT.  Keep it light, in agreement with the PC’s reality, so that you don’t get him protesting or invalidating the actual goal.
If you sum up the terminal into a service fac, you probably have another family of processes to use.  The terminal was [what the PC was using as a make-guilty mechanism.  This is a cousin to O/W.] So if the terminal won’t prepcheck, you could use service fac brackets on it: “How could you make yourself right/others wrong about it?” However, it is not likely that you will have to do this.

You can key out actual GPM’s.  Actual GPM’s are keyed in only by masses with significance, and oddly enough, there will be only one mass with significance in the environment that is really raising the devil with the PC. When you get that one, you can key him out.  You can fish him out of the bank, so that he can go back and clean up the actual GPM’s.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MARCH 1964 
Class VI 
Central Orgs

SCIENTOLOGY VI

OVERWHELMING THE PC

Since there is so much charge available in actual GPMs (several thousand times the charge in any other process) the auditor must be very smooth. He or she must not overwhelm the pc.

If the pc is overwhelmed, these immediate consequences occur:

1. 	Pc will not cognite;
2. 	Pc’s judgment will vanish;
3. 	Meter will read on anything with long protest surges;
4. 	Charge will transfer to other goals or items, making them read;
5. 	Pc may ARC Break;
6. 	Pc may go into Sad Effect;
7. 	Pc may go below ARC Break into propitiation with consequent no co-operation but apparently OK.

EXAMPLES OF OVERWHELM

Violations of the auditing cycle can bring about overwhelm:

Auditor: 	Is that your item? (Pc comm lags, auditor doesn’t wait it out.) Well, is it your item? (Pc still comm lags. Auditor gets very impatient. ) 
	Well, that’s your item!

Any part of this can overwhelm the pc. Always wait out the comm lag.

The pc is under the pressure of charge. He is slow. The auditor not in that charge can think faster. Therefore the auditor fails to see why the pc is taking time.

Auditing sessions look like just two people are sitting there. An unschooled auditor fails to realize he is looking at a pc who is miles away and deep in. The pc is in the room isn’t he? Therefore the auditor assumes, as in any social conversation, the pc is there. Well, the pc isn’t. The pc is buried under charge. Charge slows down responses.

When you pile charge up on the pc (a slightly misworded item or two) the pc ceases to be capable of clear thought and will reject even right items.

The auditor sees this, gets impatient, starts to overwhelm by informing the pc. The correct step is to do some Case Analysis and get the charge lessened. Then the pc can think.

Example: Auditor sees clearly how blah brings about blah. Pc doesn’t. Auditor’s wrong action is to explain it. Correct action is for auditor to get charge on pc lessened by Case Analysis.

The pc’s judgment is the finest asset the auditor has in a session. By overwhelm, contradiction, small breaks of the auditing comm cycle, echo metering, charge is added to pc’s case.
Charge becomes no cognite.

No cognite adds more charge by failing to as-is by pc understanding.

No cognite soon becomes overwhelm.

The less a pc cognites the more charge is accumulated.

It is the charge that overwhelms. Auditor errors add charge. Pc then is overwhelmed.

Example: Pc originates he thinks item is Woof. Auditor checks Garf. Now pc eventually given Woof (even when he said it was his in the first place) fails to understand it.

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

You can get a pc protesting silently and have everything on a list start to read. Then you can’t find the item or goal. Everything reads. Rough auditing, auditor contradictions and comm cycle failures bring this about.

Example: Pc says “I think my Item is Woof.” (It isn’t but pc thinks so.) Auditor: (Not even bothering to check Woof) “I’m sorry, it didn’t read when I called it a while ago.” There goes the list. Everything may start to read. And it wasn’t even pc’s item. But the auditor overwhelmed the pc by a direct refusal of the pc’s idea. So the list went wild on the pc’s unspoken protest. The right action, the very least the auditor could have done was recheck the item. That action at least acknowledged the pc. Then the auditor can say “I’m sorry. It doesn’t read, and suppress on it doesn’t read either.” Now the pc is happy and the auditor can go on nulling.

In Class VI the pc is right a lot more times than at lower levels. You start arguing with the pc’s heat-on-items (or goals) and you’ll soon have a messed up meter and an overwhelmed pc.

Of course, you must never give a pc goals or items that don’t read. That’s simply criminal. But you must do everything you can to get what the pc thinks is right to read. If you can’t, then tell the pc you can’t and all will be well, even so.

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

A whole list or several parts of it will go alive on overwhelm.

By overwhelming the pc you can get wrong goals and items galore.

And you get a no-cognite pc and after that you’ve had it.

No auditor can find anything without the pc’s co-operation. Preserve it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MARCH 1964
Issue II

Class VI 
Central Orgs
SCIENTOLOGY VI

METER
EVERYTHING READING

There are only a few things which cause “everything to read” on a list of goals or items.

(1) METER ABILITY

First amongst these (as in any level) is the inability of the auditor to read a meter.

In Class VI work the inability to read a meter is very subtle. It is usually that the auditor has not learned the difference between a surge and a real goal read or item read.

On a live Item list everything has some charge on it. Only the right item reads in its own peculiar way.

A right read is definitely itself and the auditor must learn it.

An actual goal chugs. It is no clean read. It may not even blow down. It is sporadic. But it is definitely a highly charged read.

Most Implant GPMs read with a long clean enthusiastic RR. Lovely. But it isn’t an actual GPM. The actual GPM chugs. It’s no clean sweep of needle. And it’s no mere Tick.

An Actual RI reads with a blowdown of the TA and heavy needle action. The action is so heavy that the sensitivity must not be higher than 4 in Class VI work. A surge looks like an RI if you run sensitivity at 16 or 32.

The auditor new to Class VI work is cocky about his metering. Yet he or she has to learn to recognize the character of a thing by its meter action.

An auditor who can’t tell an actual RI from a lock RI on an Items list with a glance at the meter response will give the pc a lot of bum items.

An auditor who can’t tell an Actual GPM from an Implant GPM or a no GPM merely by meter behaviour and no further questions will make a lot of mistakes.

In addition to how it read on the meter you do a full check-out, of course.

And in check-outs you must know, as well, by meter behaviour during checkout, what you are checking out even before you get the final answer by the check-out patter.

There are two ways then of recognizing the character of what you’re checking. One is by the reads you get from questions about it. The other is its character of read on the meter. Both are needed to get accuracy.

An auditor new to Class VI will buy a Tick. The only ticks in Class VI are on mid ruds and dogs. (Joke.)

If you can’t get a long fall in response to one of your offered identities “Implant RI, lock on an Implant” and so on down the whole list of questions, then you’ll still get one on “It isn’t”. No ticks need apply.

The auditor who buys an actual GPM because of a tick on “It’s an Actual GPM” and no better read, would praise psychiatry.

Class VI is all big read stuff. If there are no big reads on anything, including buttons, then whatever it is just “isn’t”.

It must read big if only on “Suppress” or “Wronged” if it’s anything at all.

If “everything on a list is reading” it may just be that the auditor doesn’t know a read when he or she sees one.

An Item list should give a 1” or 2” surge on every item the first time through. Only the Actual RI on it reads its head off. And blows down. And keeps reading a while. Those other items’ surges just die out.

On a goals list the list ought to be complete enough that no goal on it except actual goals moves the needle. The actual goal when read gives a chug.

A goals list is very easily suppressed. The Actual GPM may be dug off it only by asking on each goal “Has (goal being tested) been suppressed or wronged?”

The same thing can occur with an Items list. It’s been flattened out of existence. But the right item will still read on “suppressed or wronged” with a long fall and so can be found again.

But all such actions are made infrequent by an auditor’s knowing how the real thing looks and spotting it the first time.

Locks and actual RIs read quite differently. Lock goals and implant goals and actual goals all read very differently. And all at a glance. Check-out on Items becomes unnecessary when the auditor knows how they should look and can see what happened on the meter.

One of the funniest auditor flubs, but not to the pc, is the auditor who, not being able to get anything to read while trying to learn the character of an Item or goal, merely keeps repeating the same question, trying by will power to make it read. An Item or goal is what it is and dozens of repeats of the same question will not make it into something it is not.

All things are something. The trick is to ask if it is what it really is. Only then does one get a proper long fall on assessing.

Identifying what things are is a game of charades. And if one doesn’t guess the right answer one doesn’t get the nod from the meter.

The nod is a big read always if the thing being identified is anything at all. And the nod also says, by the way the needle nods, if the guess is true.

(2) THE ABANDONED ITEM OR GOAL
ANOTHER WAY
EVERYTHING READS

Given an auditor who knows the different reads on the meter, there is just one other way one can be fooled.

If the right Item or Goal on a list has been read and abandoned, all its locks will begin to read like real items or goals.

This is a fabulously important datum. The too cautious auditor can wreck everything by reading the right item, getting the right read, and then abandoning it to try to see if anything else is it.

Example: On an Item (or Goals) list the auditor has found “Bark”. It has read well when called. The auditor feels insecure, so he or she then goes on to check “Woof”. “Woof” now reads well. Pc is restive. So auditor tries another Item on the list, “Growl”. This too reads well but won’t “bring about”. Auditor now tests “Arf”. This reads fine too.

But everything is now up the spout. Pc is miserable and ARC Breaking. Auditor is frantic. An ARC Break Assessment would show “Item abandoned”.

But what Item was abandoned? There has been “Woof” “Growl” “Bark” and “Arf”. Which is right? They have all read !

Now you must get the exactly worded item or goal. No near misses will do. The exact wording. The right “up” or “upon”. Exact. If the wording is not EXACTLY RIGHT, the mass of the Item (or GPM) will not as-is. The pc will be left in heavy charge. So almost right is WRONG. Always. The goal “To Catch” is going to cause ARC Breaks and somatics if called “To Grab”. The goal “To Be Creative” will give you a sick pc if found as “To Be Artistic”. And worse, if an Item has one “s” missing, it’s wrong. “Moaning” is wrong as “Moanings”. The bank is a demon for exactness. The mind is not a confusion. It’s a martinet of too much order.

So “almost finding it” is not finding it at all.

Nothing is ever almost right in Class VI. The meter does not almost read.

So you have to find the exact goal wording or Item wording.

Now back to “Bark”. This was the first one read. It was then abandoned. This charged up its locks. So now “Woof” “Arf” and “Growl” are all capable of making “Bark” read. It is “Bark” that is still reading even when you call “Woof” and “Growl” and “Arf”. You have broken down the divisions amongst them.

Now what to do? How to find what is really reading? Ask “Has Growl been Suppressed or Wronged?” Small read. “Has Woof been Suppressed or Wronged?” Small read. “Has Bark been Suppressed or Wronged?” Big reads. Clean up “Bark” by getting pc to get off the Suppress etc, and “Bark” now reads and “Woof” “Growl” and “Arf” do not. So “Bark” is the Item.

Moral: When nulling, if you see a real big read mark it as “First read” or “1st Rd” and be safe. It’s all right to null onward but you may now find everything reading.

Pc announcing “Bark is my Item” if ignored without immediate check-out gives the same effect, since if “Bark” was the pc’s Item and was abandoned, all else can start to read, as the charge will transfer.

Hence the rule “An actual RI or actual goal abandoned on a list can now cause other lock items or goals to read well.”

The nervous auditor gets into this trap endlessly and so never learns that an Actual goal or Actual RI has its own peculiar read. Such an auditor loses all confidence in nulling accuracy and the pc goes wild.

(3) WRONG GOALS

If you ever run a wrong goal on a pc, again everything tends to read.

As we now have the pattern, the RR probably won’t go all the way off, but the needle will get tight and good indicators will flee. The pattern is close enough to keep the RR on somewhat.

But anything the pc gave you by way of Items would read.

Wrong goals are harder to detect than they were. The pattern is too good a guide. Almost any goal will run on it.

But black mass and pressure will appear, good indicators will vanish. Bad indicators will appear. And no mass as-ises.

Any actual RI has enough power to make lock or wrong goals based on it read. For instance, an Actual RI “Speeding” will cause the goal “To Speed” to check out as an Actual GPM! So beware of wrong goals. And do careful check-outs and buy only good forceful reads in answer to your assessment questions.

Implant RIs are incapable of giving a lock goal charge enough to check out. But an Actual RI has enough charge to do so. I’ve had four different goals check out for the same position. But only one gave good indicators and consistent responses.

Abandoning a right goal can make a pc very very sick. So there’s a limit on banging a goal around.
----------------

Experience tells one at length what a right goal or Item reads like, how it checks out and when one is going up the garden path.

But experience is based on sound beginnings. So know the above well. And then you can build up to good certainty on how it’s done.

The first thing to know, of course, is that there is a right way to do it. If you don’t realize that and try for it, then you’ll never learn and Class VI will remain a closed mystery to you.

But it need not, for we do know.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6403C17 SHSpec-11 The Road to Perfection

LRH has had a gamble on time going since January of 1963.  The question was, “Could he complete the job before the roof fell in?” He neglected organizations and scientologists until February of 1964, in order to research full time.  MSH caught the brunt of it.  August marked the point at which he found out that it could be done.  The materials were there.  From then, until January of 1964, the material was labelled, codified, and put together, so that it could be communicated.

At the same time, a bridge had to be created from the man on the street up to a reach for the upper levels, one that would be real to the man on the street.  That was a more difficult operation.  A person has to be walked forward with wins at every step that are real to the person, so that he will keep going forward and not get discouraged.  Some PCs, in fact most PCs, cannot have a win that amounts to anything at all.  The tiniest of wins is all that would be tolerable to such a person.  At apathy, there is a low acceptance level of a win, e.g.  “Nothing terrible happened to me today,” would be the highest acceptable level of win to such a person.  So you may have to rehabilitate the PCs ability to have a win, too.  For this reason, it is more difficult to get someone from Level 0 to Level IV than to get him from Level V on up.  He has no certainty yet.  It is easier to climb Mont Blanc with an experienced mountaineer than it is to climb a foothill with a girl in a tight dress and spike heels.

There is a political problem, in that we are faced with a world that is getting more and more pessimistic and bent on giving people no wins.  The acceptance level of win dwindles away to practically nothing.  Anyway, LRH did the job in time, so now he is working out organization, classification, etc. Basic auditing has been put into good condition.  It has been rough, but it has made seasoned individuals.  Things don’t have to be smooth, if they are certain.

Giving someone a gradient series of wins can be interfered with by his having minor ARC breaks and stopping auditing for awhile.  Or, there is someone who is “open-minded”.  A win isn’t available, and you get discouraged and give up.  Seeing that no win is available, you don’t create one. Dissemination hangs up on this one point -- the available win.  You write off someone if you see no win available.  But that is monitored by your acceptance level of a win.  You have to be able to accept a level of win that is so low that it is real to the public person.  The scale of win is a gradient scale. It is important to anyone trying to get somewhere with scientology.  It has two sides: an outward win of assisting someone and an inward win of being assisted.  It is a win for someone if he assists and a lose if he fails to assist, based on his intention to assist.  If an auditor helps a PC and the PC doesn’t recognize the change, in order to feel good about it, the auditor must have a certainty of observation that requires no agreement from the PC that something has been done.  You have to be able to see and be certain of having seen a win in a PC whose acceptance of wins is so low that he doesn’t know that he has had one.  Your certainty level has got to be high.  That is an almost impossible level to attain, but if you don’t attain it, you will go into agreement with the PC on acceptability of wins.

Comfort, a relaxed frame of mind, and some serenity about things, requires that you know the exact situation and know that it is the exact situation.  True self-confidence and poise, as opposed to the ability to endure or suffer, depends on the ability to conceive the truth of any situation.  Knowing the truth of the existing situation is the only thing that supports self-confidence.  Most departures from the truth come about as an effort to attain safety and self-security, from a fear of what might happen to him.  Man’s civilization forces lies on him at many points, by making telling the truth uncomfortable or even fatal.  It promulgates the idea that “if you said nothing but the truth for 24 hours, you would lose everything....  But if one fails to announce truth, one is, to that degree, protecting a lie.”  At this point, a person begins to surround himself with lies.  So society brings the individual to tolerate lies.  It sees virtue in lies.  It aids lies. Recognition of the truth is therefore converted into enduring, the truth.  This is a downscale mockery of an upscale item.
Recognition of the truth in a situation is the only way to as-is the situation.  However, one can be confronted with so much truth that one cannot as-is it, and one gets swamped by it.  This discourages a person from recognizing truth, also.  It leads to a not-is of truth.  It is a lack of gradient that brings a person away from recognition of truth and makes him less clear-sighted.  There is no gradient, and you’ve got to have one.  Time enters into it, since it is part of a gradient.  For instance the French Revolution was the result of ramming in a couple of major truths too fast. Political freedom is OK.  People could be educated to advantage.  But there was no gradient, so the French people ended up more debased after the revolution than before.  The truth of the situation wasn’t gradiently recognized or approached.  There was no evolution from darkness to dazzle.

The “True Believer” has no real reality with the truth that he espouses. Truth requires reality, which is the ability to assimilate truth.  If someone reaches with no gradient, with no reality, they wind up with no reality on truth.  It is not ever assimilated.  Assimilation depends on cause-distance-effect, on communication, and on an even balance of mind (affinity), while assimilating.  Truth without ARC is denied to the individual and can wrong and harm him.  Truth must go hand in glove with understanding. If there is no understanding, truth is not truth to anyone.  It is just truth.  All truths are attainable.  Transcendentalism, the notion that the truth transcends our ability to understand, is a lot of baloney.  There is no point in studying the route to truth if you don’t know what the truth is. Studying the truth when one has no idea of what the truth is, when one has no idea of what one is looking for, is like looking for Memphis without having any idea that there are any towns called Memphis, or even that there are any towns.  It is an idiotic activity:  “Let’s all sit down and study how we can get to GMPSXGRTZ.” And then nobody ever asks, “What is GMPSXGRTZ? What do you mean, ‘how to get there’?  Is it a road across space?  Is it measured by time?  Is it a space-time journey that we are making?  What kind of a journey is this, to GMPSXGRTZ???” The answer is, “We11, no....  Let’s just discuss how to get to GMPSXGRTZ.”!!  The above totally bogs down philosophy.  Kant “solved” it by saying that you could never find out what GMPSMGRTZ is.  He cut off speculation.  The work of all current gurus, adepts, and of Lao Tze, etc., is all concerned with how you approach truth, with no idea of what truth is.  This is ridiculous!

LRH performed the flatworm experiment in 1938, and found that memory was transferable in a monocell.  LRH points out that current experimenters in the area will quit soon, because their results will shortly get bizarre enough, as with the advent of past lives in the Wichita Foundation, so that their appropriations will be cut off, since their researches will be too unreal to their money sources.

We are in an optimum condition, with regard to knowing what truth we are trying to approach, since we can demonstrate by exteriorization a separation between the person and the body.  We know that we are going towards the free individual.  We know [that our road to truth is] the creation of such an individual.  We know that there is no difference in orders of life between a man and a vegetable.  We know what truth we are trying to attain.  Everybody has some sympathetic harmonic with that truth.  What is their reaction to it? It depends on their reality on the approach to this truth.  We know that life is right there where the PC is sitting, so to get to truth, “a journey across time and space” is not really required.  The journey consists of undoing the lies by which the person has walled himself in.  All we have to do to recover the individual and his ability is to undo the turns for the worse that he has taken.  We are traveling a road that has been followed, only backwards: the Way, the Tao, whatever.  We know what it is.  “It is the road that the individual has followed from a degree of perfection and beingness and self-ness ... on down to a disintegration, forgettingness, bluntingness, until he’s in the state you find him in....  All the auditor has to do is walk him back that road.  It’s all there; it’s all meter-marked.”  We are taking each lie in turn that landmarked a further degradation and undoing it.  We are recovering the individual and his potential.

So the road to truth adds up to:

1.  The individual’s potential.

2.  The situations in which the person’s potential got lessened, and what has happened to this individual.

3.  How this individual is related to the rest of the universe.

4.  What we can do to restore the potential of that person.  That is all part of the truth.  “Truth, from the viewpoint of the auditor, is what actually happened, or the situation that actually exists at any moment in the state of beingness of an individual.” It is not “the ultimate that we are seeking to attain”.  It is not something transcendental.  Truth is “that which exists.”  The road to truth might be better called the road to perfection or to an ultimate truth.  Truth is “usually all hedged up in so many ‘pitches’ and so many directions that people want you to go, so many curves on the line, that you can’t separate the wheat from the chaff.”

We know where we are going and how to get there, what it takes but “we have not mastered an estimation of the individual’s ability to conceive of truth.”  You may be talking to a grocer about scientology, but actually “you are talking to him about the road to perfection ... the composition of himself....  Who are you? What do you consist of?  What potentials [do] you have?  What potentials ... have you robbed yourself of? Where are you going? What is life?  What is your relationship ... on any dynamic?  You may be using the word, ‘scientology’, but these are the things you have embarked upon to discuss.  And the unanswered question is, ‘What can he recognize?’” We need to master the estimation of a person’s ability to assimilate truth.  It is not hard to overwhump someone with a big chunk of truth, e.g. by exteriorizing him.  You have had the experience of exteriorizing someone and then having him say, “Omigawd:  I’m me and it’s it:!”, and then, “two hours later, “What exteriorization? I wasn’t exteriorized!  Well, possibly something happened, but I don’t know.’  You’ve shot [the guy] momentarily into the rarefied air of [being able to] see it, ... but he couldn’t have it.  So you can show people things they can’t have, and [that’s] how you generate an unreality.”

If we had no gradient between wog and OT, we would soon get very unreal to everybody but ourselves.  You can show people things they can’t have, thus generating an unreality.  The common denominator here is “hit with too much truth, the individual degrades.  You hit this [guy], he exteriorizes, “Bang!” He says, ‘I’m me!  I’m a spirit!  I don’t have mass.  A body is a body!  I’m different than it!’ Two hours later, he’s harder to process.”  His ability to win has been exceeded, and he has lost.  It puts you on a withhold not to lay the truth before people.  So, lay out the truth, “but provide the road ... by having levels of acceptable truths or realities that an individual can attain....  Establish and rehabilitate his ability to win, ... so that, eventually, ... he can have truth, and that way, you won’t just throw [the person] into a complete, frothing, ecstatic, worshipping apathy.”  [This is the condition of the True Believer.]

In the past, when people got some truth, they built up secrecy about it. But the route must exist and must be wide open, not cloaked in secrecy. Training and skill do have to be there, but there is no other effort at secrecy.  The main point is to provide a gradient scale to get people up to a higher reality.  The route must exist, wide open, even if 100% of the people don’t travel it.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 MARCH 1964

CenOCon

HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES
(Cancels previous issues on same subject)

Effective immediately, the following processes are allowed in the HGC on any preclear, on the judgment of the Case Supervisor.

For psychosomatics: ARC ‘63.

For clearing: Recall a Terminal and Problems Intensive, alternated with R-2H.

8-C and any older processes the auditor has confidence in are allowed.

Study and use the materials of the last six tapes of the Saint Hill Briefing Course, but do not run or list any Goals or Items on any preclear.

Refresh the Case Supervisor on ARC Break assessments and have ARC Breaks handled by the Case Supervisor. Clean up all the ARC Breaks in the area.

Train your auditing staff on the above and on the new “Auditing by Lists” process, when issued.

Campaign to the public: “Clean up your ARC Breaks with life.”

The above, with clarifications, will remain standard HGC fare for years, as it contains the cream of all processes for the last fourteen years, and actual clearing.

Avoid advertising Itsa. Relegate it to Co-audits. Avoid R-2-12, R-3 and R-4 type processes. Advertise and deliver clearing as above.

Flatten, flatten all processes begun in the HGC.

Preclear Log Books will conform to this rundown.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6403C19 SHSpec-12 Flattening a Process

An auditor can lay aside some basic fact, do something else, and then wonder why he is having trouble.  Flattening a process is such a fact.  There are two aspects to ending a process, both having to do with what you are doing with the process:

1.  Fixing the PC up so that he can be audited (rudiments).

2.  Auditing the PC.  This gives you two different endings.  In rudiments, you are doing just enough to cure the elsewhereness of the PC.  You don’t want any PTP to get in the road of auditing.  Use the “ruds kit” to brush off PT hassles.  Destimulate the PC and get on with what you started as a major cycle.  Not knowing this, you will never complete a cycle of action on a PC.  You will keep on having to audit out-ruds, never finishing a cycle, because you don’t use tools of destimulation to push the out-rud out of your road.

The other extreme is to abandon a prepcheck or some major action because the PC had a little cognition about something.  Don’t use a ruds-like whisk broom on a major action.  You don’t end off in three minutes, with a little bitty cog.  You use the TA and you get action off the area.  You have to unflatten a subject before you can flatten it, running all the TA out of it. That is main-body-of-the-session auditing.  Main-session auditing is all done with the TA, never as with the rudiments.  If you use the wrong approach, you will get the wrong ending, and the PC will go nowhere.  You have to restimulate the PC to audit him.  You only leave major actions when the TA is off.  You don’t chicken out and say, “Oh, it is seeming a bit better now, is it?  Fine! That’s a cog, so we will end off now.”  Flunk!!

Auditing by list is like R2H.  You could use a sec check list, carefully not impinging on the PC, not restimulating anything to audit.  But that is not the way to handle the body of the session, where you really want to handle things.  The approach you use in the ruds is to restimulate nothing, so that you can get in and audit something else later.  Auditors who treat bodies of sessions like rudiments damage the PC, because they leave processes unflat. All sorts of charge will have been left bypassed, if this happens.  The effect of this is dramatic and fast-acting in R6.  It is less so at lower levels. But the long term result is the same.  You could run, “What process has been left unflat?”, and get considerable gain.

What happens if you start a prepcheck on one thing and shift to another thing before you finish?  For one thing, the PC’s ability to be prepchecked will suffer.  He will be harder to prepcheck.  also, if you prepcheck with a bad comm cycle, the tool would get blunted.  You could even prepcheck prepchecking, or prepcheck each prepcheck button.  The basic reason why a prepcheck button goes out is an incomplete cycle of action.

Thetans have a bug on continuing.  They like to see cycles continue. That gives the longevity and mass of the physical universe.  At a low level, any case is subject to the cycle of action.  “Fatalism is a total subjugation of the individual by the cycle of action: ‘What will be, will be.’” The individual is at total effect.  People are in agreement with the cycle of action, but not because it is ultimate truth.  However, it only fades out ‘way up there.  At higher levels, you can widen your time-span and do various odd things with time.  Everybody is used to and in agreement with the cycle of action, so it is a reality, but not a truth, that you use in auditing. Violations of it bring about an unreality.  That is what happens if you start an auditing cycle with a PC and don’t finish it.  The PC is parked in the middle of some incompletely as-ised mass, which he carries on into the next process, and so on.  Things start looking more and more complicated to the PC as these incomplete cycles stack up.  Freedom is real to him as “completing a cycle of action”.  So there is both the mass that he hasn’t as-ised and the incompleteness of the cycle.  The idea of a win usually goes along with the cycle of action.  One wins when one accomplishes something, even if it is just the accomplishing of still being there.  The upper echelon of this comes under intention.

Intention is part of, but senior to, the comm cycle.  “It has in it every power the thetan has,” including the power to throw lightning bolts, to hold a position, to make something continue, to do away with something, strength, accomplishment, and wit.  When you are half-shot as a thetan, when you are pretty bad off, but not yet in a body, when you are pretty gummed up with mass, your intention is still quite good enough to intend the E-meter across the desk, or a crayon into the air, or the telephone receiver off the cradle. The ability to intend is all there is to a thetan’s power.  All you have to do to weaken a thetan is to foul up his intentions, which you can do by blunting or giving him loses on his intentions.  Weakness is the only thing that traps the thetan, that holds him down, etc.  So the main thing we have to watch in auditing is that we don’t weaken the PC’s own intention.  Never blunt the PC’s own intentions.  To avoid doing this, we must differentiate between the PC’s intentions and his bank dramatizations.  Dramatizations are not intended. Validate the PC, not the bank.  You don’t ruin a PC by blunting his intentions, but you can key in incidents where his intention was blunted, if you interrupt a cycle of action half way through.  Failure to complete auditing cycles validates the bank and blunts the PC’s intentions.  Getting the PC’s goals for the session, if possible, is important in this regard.  You should at least get them cared for as ruds, before getting the body of the session going, so that his GI’s are in and his attention is free, so that he has had a win.  In every PTP, the PC’s intention has been blunted.  A person makes no progress when he has a PTP, because his intentions are blunted.  He has an intention, which something else counters with equal force, so that it hangs up in time.

Level V demonstrates this marvellously.  “Oppose” was the way the power of the thetan was knocked out, by taking his goals and intentions and implanting an automatic blunting mechanism.  The implant GPM’s themselves oppose each other.  Opposition is the keynote of an implant, and it is the only way in which they are aberrative.  They have too little mass to be really upsetting by themselves.  It is what has been done to intention that is upsetting.  Children get spoiled, not because the get all the want, but because they get their reactive intentions validated, e.g. they get rewarded for tantrums, and they get their analytical intentions opposed.  I.e. the child is not allowed to do what he wants analytically.  The auditor who only pays attention to a PC when he ARC breaks is doing the same thing.  PCs don’t turn nasty.  They get overwhumped by the bank when their own intentions are blunted, and the bank dramatizes.  A person who is weakened is unable to hold anything at a distance, so everything collapses on him.  If you don’t so anything about the PC’s intentions, you get the PC’s dramatizations.

The auditor’s intention is valuable to the session.  Because he is less susceptible than the PC to dramatization in the PC’s bank, his intention is senior to the PC’s.  But if the PC’s intention is neglected, it weakens, and we get an increased chance of dramatization.  The PC’s analytical intentions are also valuable to the session.  Down deep, the PC intends to get freedom and a return of power (i.e. a return of intention).  He can now go all the way, if he works along a certain path.  The intention for him to arrive is sotto voce in the PC and more explicit in the auditor, since the auditor isn’t getting distracted by the bank.  The PC can mix up freedom and escape, and not want to confront things.  A person is weak to the degree that he has allowed his intention to be blunted and strong to the degree that his intention is free.

Thetans become worried about and hold back their intentions because they have been convinced that their intentions are out of their control and that they can cause bad effects as a result.  If you asked a PC, “What intentions do you have to keep under wraps?”, you would get a roaring automaticity.

Scientology can get ahead partly because people attacking scientology have no idea what our intentions are.  “A world of no wars, no insanity, etc.” is very unreal to them.  They think, “That couldn’t be their real intention,” so they attack nonexistent intentions, which is why they come off looking like asses.  If a case is recovering, he is really just removing his blunted intentions, i.e. he is removing the obstacles that he has put there or agreed to.

A doingness intention has time added to it.  Therefore it is tied into the cycle of action.  A pure intention doesn’t necessarily involve time or a cycle of action, or space.  You could make an intention in the past, present, or future.  Time and space are the result of intention, which is senior to them.  As a PC comes downscale to “normal” levels, though, his agreement with a cycle of action results in the disappearance of his intention out of the cycle of action.  If you take someone who is having a terrible time, you can show him cycles of action, with short-sessioning, CCH’s, etc.  Eventually his own intentions start to free up out of the MESTiness of it all.  The only way the auditor can foul this up is to leave his own cycles of action incomplete.

If we are going to have wins, we must validate analytical intention, knock out dramatizations, and complete cycles of action, by flattening processes, within the reality of the process involved, and in accordance with how much is there to be flattened.  If you can get an auditing cycle completed, you will get a win.  If you don’t, you will get a lose.  It is that simple.

6403C24 SHSpec-13 International City

A communication is necessary to stop fights, as well as to start them. The communications that start fights generally occur over distances that are quite great.  The distances set up high voltages and the terminals have to shout too loudly, so the communication is imperfect.  Great distance in communication enters confusion and misunderstoods.  They have to shout at each other, so they consider that they are mad at each other.  The leaders have the illusion that they are far enough apart to shoot at each other with impunity. One can blow up Moscow without destroying Washington.  It is an illusion of security, lent by distance.  But this is no longer true.  None of these national governments can really operate broadly for everyone’s benefit, but they try to go out and influence areas beyond their borders.  The result is continual brushfire wars, e.g. Vietnam, where Washington and Moscow fight by proxy.  The ultimate result is to bring about a dangerous environment.

In its obsession with “defense”, the government absorbs tax money and spends it on arms.  So we get economic upset and inflation because of a shortage of goods.  Peace doesn’t pay.  Literally.  If money won’t buy things, it inflates.  We are told that there are plenty of products in the U.S., but the inflation continues, because the U.S. dollar has gone international, and there is too little production elsewhere.  Inflation leads to communism and no money.  It leads to slavery, because no one can keep up with it.  So everyone, therefore, has to turn to communism.  Russia, however, has never succeeded in feeding its own people.  One reason for this fact is Russia’s defense budget and the large army that they maintain.  Another is the fact that the communistic worker is perpetually on strike because he gets no reward for his labor.  Politics has entered into economics, where it doesn’t belong.

National degradation results from things like draft laws, which put people in a “no choice” scene, being where they don’t want to be and doing things that they don’t want to do.  This leads to apathy.  The governments are at war, not the individual.  American and Russian farmers, when in comm, get along very well.  Only when depersonalized as soldiers can people act for the organizations of earth and slaughter each other.  The planet is going to blow up or otherwise become very unpleasant unless some changes are made to bring about peace.

This has been a long think, [this question of how to promote peace -- ] ever since Egypt, in political spheres.  A perhaps impractical but interesting solution is based on the fact that the two sides of the body would, perhaps, be at war, except for the fact that the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body and vice versa.  So if Washington governed the U.S. from Moscow and Moscow governed Russia from Washington, the chances of war would be immensely reduced!  Advancing the cause of peace pays nobody, as things stand now.  And war does pay.  “The more trouble there is, the more importance the political figure has....  Man deifies what causes trouble.” Marie of Rumania had a very peaceful.  prosperous government.  But she didn’t get lots of publicity or admiration.  In the U.S., the war presidents are the ones who get remembered, not the peace presidents.

The common citizen, however, doesn’t make his personal fortune out of such chaos.  If Man is to make any real forward progress, he must have peace. The only way that a government would lay off income tax, for instance, would be if it weren’t being faced with demands for military appropriations.  Length of time since the last war determines the state of calm of a country.  The easiest program for international sanity would be one of reducing strife and dissonance in the environment, making a less threatening environment, with less fixation on an unconfrontable future.  A person with no future acts weird.  Man is tied to the idea that he lives only once.  This gives him a certain irresponsibility for the area he lives in. [Cf. Neville Chamberlain: “I bring you peace -- in our time.”] Man won’t buy the idea that he will live again.  There is too much responsibility in this idea.

To have an effective world peace program, the following problems have to be solved:

1.  The importance of the politician must be maintained.  He has to keep his importance, or he won’t support the program.

2.  Continued activity for manufacturers and industry, so that the economy won’t collapse without war industries.

3.  Shortening of the comm lines among the capitols of the world, so that there is greater understanding.

4.  Reduction of individual nations’ initiatives for waging war.

5.  Reduction of the danger in the environment.

6.  Offering some startling, dramatic objective that is very complicated to bring about.  You need some attractive, constructive, and hard-to-achieve goals.

The solution would have to be big enough to make the problem of war seem soluble.

LRH put this together initially as an exercise on capacities of OT’s. One of the things that we have to remember is that we have a base, called “earth”.  We don’t want the base any more enturbulated than it has to be, nor do we want the base so aware of itself as a base that it will resent being one.  Also, there are exercises that one should be able to do to improve one’s skill.  They should not be of a hostile nature, at least towards this planet. I am being “very vague -- purposefully so -- but I think you understand me.”

It takes a long time to develop a technology.  We have the assets of our technology, so our interest in a peaceful earth is not only altruistic, but also a “first” dynamic interest in its continuance, so that our technology can survive.  Earth also has value as a base because, for one thing, it is in a nice, quiet backwater of the galaxy and likely to be overlooked by others in the galaxy.

So LRH dreamed up a project on which thetans could work together.  Its name became “The International City Project”.  LRH reached the conclusion that if all the nation’s capitols were in one geographical area, all the major problems mentioned earlier would be solved.  The governments would be far less prone to go to war.  They would be close enough to each other to communicate easily.  There would be no false security from distance.  There would be a pleasant social atmosphere, with constant parties with heads of states, not just diplomats.  The bombing of such a city would become a rather remote possibility, “particularly if you never let people who seemed to be angry at each other leave the capitol at the same time!

This would create a problem of a long comm line to the home country.  You would have to prevent the development of a new capitol in the home territory, by having the comm line go directly to separate states or counties.  The comm lines from the governments would not go on a via to one major city or central point inside their countries, but would go to all the states, prefects, counties, or whatever.  This would also prevent revolution in the home country.  It would require building lots of comm lines.  Also, building the new capitols in a new place would take an immense amount of building. Additionally, you would have an international parliament of earth, housed in a completely bombproof bunker under a mountain.  It would have appropriate representation, based on population, production, etc.  There would be plenty of politicking to keep the politicians happy.

The one-world-togetherness idea is a popular one on earth.  If elementary steps are taken, the rest might follow easily.  One preliminary step would be.

1.  All governments turn over nuclear weapons and supplies to the U.N. immediately.

2.  Have the U.N. and all governments select a site for and construct an international city, preferably in North Africa, on the Mediterranean coast, where land reclamation can expand its area and its comm lines can be easily centered.

3.  Persuade all governments to move their capitols to International City, complete with heads of governments, confesses, and parliaments.  Prohibit a secondary capitol or even a comm relay center within the country itself. 

4.  Secure comm lines and command lines from International City to each internal county or state.  Regard each of these counties or states as an autonomous unit, under control of the government in International City.

5.  Reorganize the U.N. on a formula recognizing land area, population figures, and production value.  Remove all favored nations categories and the exercise of special privileged and the veto by a few.  “Form the U.N.  into a judiciary division, two houses, and an executive branch.  Key officials [are] to be popularly elected ... within the nations that they represent, and by voting by both upper and lower U.N. houses for the head of the U.N.”  Reform the U.N. charter into an instrument specifically engaged in governing the heads of nations and international affairs.  Forbid, in the charter, all interference with individuals or smaller communities.

6.  Forbid all warlike treaties of “mutual assistance”.

7.  Create a small, effective military force for the U.N., abolishing all other war facilities.

8.  Persuade international monetary activities to stabilize economics.

9.  Limit what a national government should be up to in the U.N.

We go ahead with this plan on the basis that a general agreement among scientologists would push all the individual efforts into a coordinated activity, so that they would count.  Here is a big plan that is sufficiently sloppy so that if it went pretty far awry, if everybody were moving in that direction, you would have some possibility of attaining the final objective. It has good “figure-figure” value.  It is a sufficiently interesting plan that it would cause a lot of conversation.  It also has a kind of lonely individuality, in that no one else is doing anything at all for world peace. It coheres what could be lots of individual actions.  It is feasible, because it doesn’t have to be done perfectly to be done.

Ideas from scientology occur and appear in the world to a surprising degree.  So there is more chance of this plan coming to pass than one might think.  If scientologists were involved in bringing about what amounts to a complete political revolution of earth, there would be good dissemination in it.  Scientologists would be available to handle personal upsets, etc., so their influence would get expanded.  Keep the word “scientology” parked somewhere on the fringes of this thing, and we would get a monopoly on mental healing within the boundaries of International City.

The main virtue of this plan is that there has been a complete void of ideas for world peace, and this is an intriguing one.  It is something which, if adopted, would certainly make the planet less dangerous.  It has its liabilities, but they are outweighed by its advantages.  Someone could, perhaps, try to take over the central government and become a dictator, but this would be pretty hard to do.  Hitler failed to take over the world.  True, the International City arrangement does put all the political control in one place, “but it also puts into that [place] a lot of wily guys.” Not being able to attain their political objectives by war, “they will try to attain them by diplomacy, and they would welcome the proximity of other capitols and a large legislature to lobby in....  They are not about to give this up [for] a dictatorship.”  They wouldn’t cooperate with such a dictator.

What about national revolts?  Well, “that possibility would be equally apparent to the head of every state in International City, and I think he would tend to govern in such a way that it wouldn’t happen.”

The political government of International City itself would be independent of the U.N.  It would have enough force to balance any house guards or bodyguards that might be around.  The product of this city government is the safety and security of individuals in International City. It would be kept as itself by being made very profitable, not political. International City would originally be financed “in such a way that it itself becomes a property which becomes very profitable to some people, it doesn’t matter who.  They would consider it a governmental responsibility because it is profitable.

The Russians would hate this last bit, but then they are always goofing up in that area anyway.  “The way to have a calm International City is to make sure that the ownership of the land and property of International City brings in money to a small group who sit as a council in International City and make sure that things remain nice and peaceful and profitable.”  No politics would be involved.  This makes International City a Hell of a piece of bait for some construction company.  “After it has built its buildings, it is going to draw rent on [them] from here on out....  A member of that construction company is going to sit on the governing board of that city with no government over its head, and all it has to do is sit there and keep the peace in International City....  You’ve put a very hard core of very hard-headed guys who want to make awful sure that they keep dragging down the rent, you see, from the white house!”

You are also splitting up political control.  “If you want to see a lousy capital, take a look at a capitol that is owned by the government. Governments take very bad care of [things they own], because there’s no profit in it for anybody.”

Our direct public interest in International City would be limited to acting as a clearing house for information concerning it.  Overtly, it is something for scientologists to support, help out on, and talk about, just like everybody else.  Covertly, it is a training ground for the budding OT, a nice exercise for him.  It becomes very fruitful.  It gives him something useful to do.

Perhaps the main thing that this plan offers is some hope for people.  It gives the scientologist a town.  It puts a piece of this planet into his hands to be interested in.  I chose the location I did because it is where the oldest comm lines on the planet were located.  There is a lot of coast and country in the area between Tunis and Tripoli.  Many old comm lines have gone through that area.  It should be fun for scientologists and OT’s.  It should create a fantastic amount of new wealth in a desert.  It is busy.  “It’s a broad fourth dynamic method of de-dangerizing the environment -- as a process.”  Just saying that a feasible plan does exist puts in some hope, and to that degree, it de-dangerizes the environment.  There is more future in it.  It is a method of disseminating to the heads of nations in one small area, all at once.

We have had trouble with governments recently.  They have been disrespectful.  We shouldn’t stand for it.  The way you can really upset a government is to move its capitol.  The fact that you are talking about moving all the earth’s capitols depowers the nations of earth with regard to scientology.  Even if they agree that it is a good thing to do, removing the nations’ capitols from their positions makes the nations weak.  A terminal is as powerful as it can hold its position.  You are threatening them with not being able to hold their position.  It puts scientology in a position of being of comparable magnitude the governments of earth, rather then just being of comparable magnitude to a single government, since it would be controlling the positions of all the governments of earth.  They don’t know the tech, so they couldn’t explain the odd feeling that they would get at the idea of moving.  They don’t know that it is very important to hold a position if you want power.  Just espousing such a plan would lead to a shift of relative power between you and the government.  They would feel as though they were slipping.
If we hold to this as a central agreement, it will eventually come about.  It depends for its power on interest.  There is no moneyed group behind this, but there is “a huge vacuum provided ... that would pick up such people and put them into it.   [But] then they are not now, i.e. won’t then be, ... ‘in back of’ it, behind it.  They’re in it.  We are in back of it.”  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 2 APRIL AD14

Magazine Article 
BPI

TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE

Completing research on the highest levels of clearing now being taught as the upper course at Saint Hill, Class VI, OT, I made a very fundamental discovery about Man and Life that I’d like you to know about.

You probably have speculated on this many times—are there two kinds of people: good people and bad people? Society is more or less organized on the basis that there are. And certainly one sees that some are successful and some aren’t, some are good to know and some aren’t.

Even in modern TV fiction one has the cowboys in the white hats and the cowboys in the black hats; indeed one probably couldn’t have stories at all to Man’s way of thinking unless there were heroes and ogres. And even fiction is rigged as a moral lesson in good and bad people.

Philosophers long before Greece pondered moral conduct in terms of good and bad. And Diogenes was looking for an honest man, implying some weren’t.

More recent speculation in the 19th Century termed all men evil unless forced to be good.

Some schools of thought tried to avoid the point by saying early childhood formed character. Yet other schools maintained Man would always be evil unless personally threatened, which gives us the presence of police in the society. But even police sometimes work on the idea that there are good and bad people.

From all this one could judge that Man had a problem about whether people are good or bad.

Probably at this minute you could think of some examples of good people and bad people. You know those who rave and gnaw the rug at the very thought of Scientology helping anyone, so therefore there must be people of evil intention toward their fellows.

And there are.

The research results you would be interested in show clearly that there are two types of behaviour—that calculated to be constructive and that calculated to be disastrous.

These are the two dominant behaviour patterns. There are people then who are trying to build things up and others who are trying to tear things down.

And there are no other types. Actually there aren’t even shades of grey.

The disaster type can be repressed into inactivity (and illness) and the constructive type can also be repressed (and made ill).

Thus there are two basic actions, each with many other subsidiary actions.

There is also a cyclic or combined type who is alternately constructive and disastrous.

So there are cowboys in white hats and cowboys in black hats. And the cowboys in the grey hats are too sick to be in the game.

One scholarly chap (a very sick fellow) hopefully told me once that there were no true villains, no purely evil people. He was whistling past the graveyard. There may not be evil people, but there are people currently devoted to doing evil actions.

All such conduct is apparent and dominant. We see such people all the time. We just don’t want to see them.

The underlying reasons for this are, in the absence of processing, fixed and unchangeable in any one lifetime.

As Man knows a man only in one lifetime, the basic cause or changes have not been observed. Thus to all practical purposes for Man, some are good and some are evil. And if we didn’t have Scientology it would not only not be observed but couldn’t ever be changed.

That this condition exists—that half are good and half are bad according to their personalities—oddly enough does not alter basic Scientology concepts. It explains why certain persons appear to be evil and some appear to be good.

Examining the actual goals of an individual shows us why.

About half the goals of any one individual are constructive, the remainder are destructive.

It takes a being a very long time to live completely through the cycle of one goal, much less a series of goals.

Therefore any one individual at any given long period of his existence is only fixated on disaster and at a subsequent long period is fixated only on being constructive.

So the same being at different lifetimes is good and evil.

Given a sudden overwhelming experience a “good person” may be shifted violently in his own goals pattern and become evil. And a “bad person”, acted upon powerfully by life, will become good. But they also become sick. Their illness stems from being moved out of present time into past heavy energy patterns. It is no cure to so move them despite the assertions of 19th Century mentalists and their shock “treatment”. This shows why shock sometimes works and why changes of character come about. And it also shows why such changes are accompanied by severe illness and early death. The person is thrown violently out of present time into a painful past.

The problem is not a problem of sanity and insanity. It is a problem of disastrous motives and constructive motives and the degree to which either is suppressed.

By suppressing the damaging motives of a being who is currently inclined to disaster, one can make that being “behave”. But by suppressing the constructive motives of a being currently inclined to constructiveness (as in the military), one can make that being “behave” also. But both will become physically ill, neurotic or insane in the absence of processing.

So the same being in one long period is constructive and in the next long period disastrous.

As Man measures time in small bits such as youth, old age or a lifetime, he could conceive of a being as either only constructive or only disastrous.

Fortunately for us, this also solves the ancient riddle that one cannot be granted power without also having good intentions. The only way final and powerful abilities can be returned to an individual is by ridding him of all these hidden compulsions, a task now accomplished at Level VI.

This gives the Scientologist a useful insight into character. A sick being is one who has been bent upon violence and was suppressed, or one who was bent upon constructiveness and was suppressed.

It also gives us a whole span of new processes for Level III called “Auditing by Lists”, available in HGCs or from informed field auditors. This is quite in addition to what it does at Level VI. And it also tells us that no one with obsessive intentions will ever make it to the highest and most powerful levels with disastrous inclinations.

But at the street level, with no processing involved, we have these two basic types—good and evil.

And these subdivide into the good who couldn’t be good and became sick, and the evil who couldn’t be evil and became sick.

But these facts are more than philosophic observations. They deliver to us understanding and more chance to be right about people. And they give us as well the wide open door to making people well at Level III.

One cannot push research as I have done in the past year into the stratosphere without learning more at sea level also. And this is what has happened here.

The basic travail of Man is that he is divided into those who build and those who demolish, and in this conflict of intentions his fight, whichever side he is on, is always lost.

Or was lost until the Scientologist came along.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1964
CenOCon

ALL LEVELS

Q AND A

A great number of auditors Q and A.

This is because they have not understood what it is.

Nearly all their auditing failures stem not from using wrong processes but from Q and A.

Accordingly I have looked the matter over and re-defined Q and A.

The origin of the term comes from “changing when the pc changes”. The basic answer to a question is, obviously, a question if one follows the duplication of the Comm formula completely. See Philadelphia Congress 1953 tapes where this was covered very fully. A later definition was “Questioning the pc’s Answer”. Another effort to overcome it and explain Q & A was the Anti-Q and A drill. But none of these reached home.

The new definition is this:

Q AND A IS A FAILURE TO COMPLETE A CYCLE OF ACTION ON A PRECLEAR.

A CYCLE OF ACTION IS REDEFINED AS START—CONTINUE—COMPLETE.

Thus an auditing comm cycle is a cycle of action. It starts with the auditor asking a question the preclear can understand, getting the preclear to answer it and acknowledging that answer.

A process cycle is selecting a process to be run on the preclear, running the Tone Arm action into it (if necessary) and running the Tone Arm action out of it.

A programme cycle is selecting an action to be performed, performing that action and completing it.

Thus you can see that an auditor who interrupts or changes an auditing comm cycle before it is complete is “Q and A-ing”. This could be done by violating or preventing or not doing any part of the auditing cycle, i.e., ask the pc a question, get an answer to a different idea, ask the different idea, thus abandoning the original question.

An auditor who starts a process, just gets it going, gets a new idea because of pc cognition, takes up the cognition and abandons the original process is Q and A-ing.

A programme such as “Prepcheck this pc’s family” is begun, and for any reason left incomplete to go chasing some new idea to Prepcheck, is a Q and A.

Unfinished cycles of action are all that louse up cases.

Since Time is a continuum, a failure to carry out a cycle of action (a continuum) hangs the pc up at that exact point.

If you don’t believe it, prepcheck “Incomplete actions” on a pc! What Incomplete action has been suppressed? etc, cleaning the meter for real on every button. And you’d have a clear—or a pc that would behave that way on a meter.

Understand this and you’ll be about ninety times as effective as an auditor.

“Don’t Q and A!” means “Don’t leave cycles of action incomplete on a pc.”

The gains you hope to achieve on a pc are lost when you Q and A.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 APRIL 1964
Franchise
ALL LEVELS
AUDITING SKILLS
(Forming the technical basis of preclear,
co-audit and auditor classification.)

The following list of skills is a totality of processes in use in modern Scientology.

Aside from the purely philosophical side of Scientology, this represents the auditor’s technology.  All modern training should be built on these lines.

These processes handle all cases and take the pc from humanoid, through clear, to OT.

The auditor who has been through all these levels finds the skills under a Class VI auditor a culmination of earlier studies with some additions as to what is being handled.

This is a rapid forecast survey. It does not invalidate HGC allowed processes of current date. Several old familiar processes not mentioned, and all processes that get a pc to do a comm cycle, come under “Repetitive Processes” since they vary only in having different commands, not in technique of administration.

SCIENTOLOGY LEVELS

LEVEL 0: 	Dangerous environment, ARC, education in basics of life. Case Improvement by education in Scientology and orientation in environment.

LEVEL I: 	R1C for PTPs, R1CM (fishing with TA), Assists, R2C (discussion by lists), Listen Style and Itsa.
	Case Improvement by communication on closely interested subjects and problems, using TA Blowdowns.

LEVEL II: 	Repetitive processes, Model Session, Op-Pro-By-Dup, 8-C, CCHs, Havingness, General O/W, ARC ‘63, Auditing Cycle.
	Case Improvement by disciplined comm cycle, awareness of mind and environment, using TA of meter and cumulative TA divisions.

LEVEL III: 	Auditing by List, Sec Checking by List, Prepchecking, Problems Intensive, Mid Ruds, and Model Session. (Auditing by List is SOM-3L.)
	Case Improvement by removing psychosomatics, cleaning needle of all reads on given questions, any assessments done by upper level auditor.

LEVEL IV: 	R4SC, ARC Break Assessments, R4H (R2H), and Case Analysis.
	Case Improvement by Service Facsimile, life ARC Breaks and Case Analysis, using the listing and assessment potentials of the meter, which is not done in lower levels. (Clearing this lifetime.)

LEVEL V: 	Omitted.

LEVEL VI: 	Locating the truncation, checking goals, running the Line Plot and Track Analysis.
	Case Improvement by running pc’s own goals all the way to operating thetan.
THINGS A CLASS VI AUDITOR SHOULD KNOW

 1. 	Case Analysis
 2. 	PTP
 3. 	Psychosomatic
 4. 	ARC Break
 5. 	Session
 6. 	Class VI ARC Breaks
 7. 	Listing
 8. 	Nulling a list
 9. 	Auditing by list
10. 	Auditor’s Code
11. 	Completing a cycle of action
12. 	Havingness
13. 	Theory of restimulation and destimulation
14. 	Observation of preclear
15. 	Reading a meter
16. 	Executing an auditing cycle
17. 	Knowing not to Q & A
18. 	Knowing about NO auditing
19. 	Symptoms of an ARC Break
20. 	Good indicators
21. 	Bad indicators
22. 	Not to mess up a good running preclear
23. 	Not to continue the preclear who isn’t running
24. 	Knowing when to stop auditing and ending up the session
25. 	How to handle pc’s PTPs at Level VI when they show up
26. 	Track analysis
27. 	Getting the preclear to follow a Line Plot
28. 	Guiding a preclear down a Goals Plot
29. 	Finding out where a series is truncated
30. 	Finding out which type of goals series the preclear is in
31. 	Looking good, crisp and business-like as an Auditor

The above gives the basis of three classifications.

Preclear: 	Has achieved the gains, knows the why and parts of the processes, and the underlying basics. No auditor performance or ability required.

Co-auditor: Can perform the process under supervision and has passed a non-professional examination on it.

Auditor: 	Professionally qualified in all respects in theory, practical and auditing at that level.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6404C10 SHSpec-14 How to Manage a Course

[Some of the data in this tape is also covered in HCOPL 10Apr64 “Scientology Courses”.]

There are three zones of responsibility in course management:

1.  Providing valuable subject materials.  Scientology now embraces and culminates anything desirable in the fields of religion, mysticism, spiritualism, or mental sciences, so we have valuable subject materials.

2.  Organizing and codifying the materials so they are highly effective and comprehensible.  LRH and MSH have figured out the right form and organization of a bulletin.  There are twelve headings.

3.  Instructing the student in those materials, to a high level of competency and comprehension.

The largest potential randomity comes in (3), above.  Students need individual handling, to clarify their individual misunderstoods.  There are no slow students.  There are only slow instructors.  A fast course is well instructed.  A slow course is poorly instructed.  A bad course gets bad enrollments.  If you want a full course, give a well-instructed course.

We do have to develop methods of handling students who throw lots of complication and questions into learning the materials.  The instructor’s attitude should be very tough and very helpful.  He should be able to discriminate between a student who is genuinely confused and is putting in some arbitrary of his own, and a student who is merely being an obstructionist.  The instructor must not be concerned with the student’s knowledge of inessentials, but must be very tough about the student’s knowledge of essential material.  Examine essentials only.  Don’t bother with inessentials.  Instruction is fast to the degree that the instructor gets the essential data through to the student and gets the student off of his concern with bric-a-brac.

(Ill health depends on the broken dramatization of a GPM.)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 APRIL 1964
Sthil
Class VI
SCIENTOLOGY VI  PART ONE

TONE ARM ACTION
(Summary of previous HCO Bulletins)

The state of case of the pc has nothing to do with getting Tone Arm Action. An auditor is in absolute control of the bank—it always does what you tell it to do. A case must not be run without TA action or with minimal TA action. If it didn’t occur, Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented! It doesn’t just “not occur”.

The skill of an auditor is directly measured by the amount of TA he or she can get. Pcs are not more difficult one than another. Any pc can be made to produce TA. But some auditors cut TA more than others.

The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to get Tone Arm Action. Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action. Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA NOW.

Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action.

1. 	Get good Tone Arm Action.

2. 	Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action.

And Body Motion doesn’t count, as TA.

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.

THE MOST CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN BUT WITHOUT TA ACTION WILL NOT CHANGE BUT CAN DETERIORATE A CASE. It takes the right process correctly run to get TA action. So don’t underrate processes or the action of the auditor.

TA MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR NOT TO ACT. TA NOT MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR TO ACT.

Your enemy is Over-Restimulation of the pc. As soon as the pc goes into more charge than he or she can Itsa easily the TA slows down! And as soon as the pc drowns in the over-restimulation the TA stops clank!

Unless destimulated a case can’t get a rocket read or present the auditor with a valid goal.

In doing R6 the silent auditor lets the pc Itsa all over the whole track and causes Over-Restimulation which locks up the TA. But in lower levels of auditing, inviting an Itsa with silence is an ordinary action.

As soon as you get into Level VI auditing however, on the pc’s actual GPMs, the auditor has to be crisp and busy to get TA and a silent, idle auditor can mess up the pc and get very little TA.

Level VI auditing finds the auditor smoothly letting the pc Itsa RIs and lists but the auditor going at it like a small steam engine finding RIs, RIs, RIs, Goals, RIs, RIs,

 RIs. For the total TA in an R6 session only is proportional to the number of RIs found without goofs, wrong goals or other errors which rob TA action.

So the higher the level the more control of the pc’s attention.

Only in R6 where you’re dead on the pc’s GPMs and the pc is allowed to say it is or isn’t can you get TA good action out of listing and nulling. And even then a failure to let the pc say it is it can cut the TA down enormously.

In confirmation of auditors being too anxious to get in the Itsa line themselves and not let the pc is the fad of using the meter as a Ouija Board. The auditor asks it questions continually and never asks the pc. Up the spout go divisions of TA. “Is this Item a terminal?” the auditor asks the meter. Why not ask the pc? If you ask the pc, you get an Itsa, “No, I think it’s an oppterm because_____” and the TA moves.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.
                      
ECHO METERING

The pc says, “You missed a suppress. It’s_____” and the auditor re-consults 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.

DON’T ECHO INVALIDATE Echo Invalidation:

The pc gives an Item. The auditor calls it back to the pc and says it doesn’t RR. If this is kept up the pc will be put into a state of sen that is appalling. The right way to do this is as follows:

Pc gives Item.

Auditor writes it down.

All Items are written down that the pc gives.

An auditor never repeats Items to the pc after the pc says them. If the auditor doesn’t understand he asks pc to spell it or if it is singular or plural. Don’t fake an understanding. The list must be accurate.

Echo Invalidation, in which pc names an Item and auditor says “That isn’t it” is not just bad form but a very vicious practice that leads to a games condition. The Invalidation of each Item makes the pc very dizzy and very desperate. The pc, sick and confused, starts plunging in desperation for the right Item and goes swiftly down tone and out of session.

High pc morale is vital to blowing charge and finding RIs.

Uphold the pc’s morale. Don’t begin Echo Invalidation.

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? 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.

You take the pc’s data. Never take his orders.

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 ....”

The meter is not there to invalidate the pc.

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”.

Auditing selectively restimulates, locates the charge and discharges it (as seen on the action of a moving Tone Arm).

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.

METER DEPENDENCE

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.
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.

A pc must be carefully weaned of meter dependence, not abruptly chopped off.

If a pc’s case is improving the pc becomes more independent of the meter. This is the proper direction.

Build up the pc’s confidence in his own knowingness and continuously and progressively reduce the pc’s dependence on a 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.

CHARGE

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.

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.

BY-PASSED CHARGE

By-passed Charge does not always = ARC Break.

But ARC Break always = By-passed Charge.

By-passed Charge always exists in a session—it isn’t until it is keyed in by some communication failure in session that it causes an ARC Break.

The source of all ARC Breaks is By-passed Charge. There is no other source of ARC Breaks.

People do not ARC Break on known charge. It is always the hidden or the earlier charge that causes the ARC Break.

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.

All by-passed charge is in some degree a missed withhold, missed by both auditor and pc.

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.

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.

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.

THE ARC BREAK

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.

IN R6 WHEN THE PC CRITICIZES OR ATTACKS THE AUDITOR OR GOES INTO GRIEF OR APATHY, AN R6 ERROR HAS JUST OCCURRED. THE AUDITOR MUST IGNORE THE PC’S STATEMENTS AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE ARC BREAK AND QUICKLY REMEDY THE R6 AND DO NOTHING ELSE.

THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL R6 ARC BREAKS CONSISTS OF A MISSED OR WRONGLY DESIGNATED GPM, GOAL OR RELIABLE ITEM. THERE ARE NO OTHER SOURCES OF R6 ARC BREAKS.

Bad sessioning, poor auditing, ordinary life missed withholds are only contributive to R6 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 R6.
ARC BREAK RULE 1: 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 ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT AND LOCATE AND INDICATE TO THE PC THE BY-PASSED CHARGE.

If you know you’ve missed a goal or RI, just saying so prevents any ARC Break. DON’T BY-PASS CHARGE UNKNOWN TO THE PC.

ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT

The meter is invaluable in locating by-passed charge and curing an ARC Break.

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 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.

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.

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.

Several by-passed charges can exist and be found on one list.

Sometimes in trying to locate the by-passed charge causing an ARC Break, the pc’s needle is so dirty that it almost can’t be read.

However there is a way to read it. When the correct by-passed charge is located and indicated the needle will go beautifully clean.

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.

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.

ARC Breaks are inevitable. They will happen.

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 reasserts 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.

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.

Realize that the answering of the process question is senior to the asking of another process question.

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.

PC TONE

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.

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.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 APRIL AD14 
Central Orgs 
Franchise
MODEL SESSION
LEVELS III TO VI
(Cancels previous issues)

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 “Put your hands in your lap.” “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?”

	“	has anything been protested?”

	“	is there anything you have been anxious about?”

	“	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.

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?”

	“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 for this session” or “Thank you for making some of these goals for this session. I’m sorry you didn’t make all of them” or “I’m sorry you didn’t make these goals for this session.”

	“Have you made any gains in this session that you would care to mention?” “Thank you for making these gains for this session” or “I’m sorry you didn’t make any gains for this session.”

HAVINGNESS:

12. 	(After adjusting the meter) “Put your hands in your lap.” “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.

LRH:dr.bh							L RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1964
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY III
AUDITING BY LISTS

The earlier genus of this process was Sec Checking on the Joburg. With no reference to these, I recently developed for Level III a process called Auditing by Lists. Any list can be used.

As a preview to the process I asked staff member Roger Biddell to use List One and List Four, normally used for ARC Breaks at Level IV. Their questions were generalized. Instead of “Have I _____”, “Has there been _____” was used. Otherwise the question remained the same as given in the HCO Bulletin for L. 1 and L.4. He ran the process for some hours on a preclear with excellent results and summarized my verbal and written instructions as applied.

AUDITING BY LISTS
L. 1 AND L.4

Use meter at sensitivity 16.

Use ARC Break assessment Lists 1 and 4. The questions asked are generalized and without time limiters.

i.e. 	Has a withhold been missed?
	Have you been given a wrong goal? etc.

Begin with List 1. Ask the first line of this list while watching the meter for an instant read.

If the line does not read, say “That’s clean” and move on to the next line of the list and do the same action with this new line.

If the pc has something to say about a line that is clean, let him say it, acknowledge it and then you ask the next line. Don’t Q and A.

If the line when asked has an instant read say “That reads” then “What do you consider this could be?” or “What considerations do you have about this?”

Let the pc answer all he wants to. While he is giving his considerations, mark down any blowdowns of the TA and what he was talking of at the moment of the blowdown.

When the pc has given all his considerations say “Thank you. I’ll check the line on the meter” and call the line again. If it instant reads say “There’s another read here” then again ask for considerations, etc.

Continue these actions until the line goes clean.

When clean say “That’s clean” then—

“Of what you have told me on this line, what do you consider the main thing to be here?” (A)
When pc has answered say “Thank you.”

Then, “I want to indicate that the meter gave us our biggest blowdown on_____and that charge had been bypassed on this.” And in the blank, state the subject that gave the biggest blowdown when the pc talked about it.

If no blowdown then “It seems that the main thing here is _____” and give what pc stated in answer to (A).

Then move on to the next line.

When List 1 is completed, do List 4, then List 1, then List 4 and so on.

If running correctly, the TA total should increase from session to session. The pc should get more and more blowdowns on his considerations. Then he should get blowdowns on what he considers the main thing is and finally get blowdowns on your indication of the bypassed charge.

Don’t Q and A. Don’t take up or do anything with the pc’s considerations. Don’t ever say “That still reads.” It’s always “Another read” as “It still reads” makes the pc feel he has not answered the question.

This process gets charge off the case.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6404C21 SHSpec-17 Problems and Solutions

There are some research maxims standing apart from and monitoring the body of scientology, having to do with how you figure it out.  Excalibur was a whole book-full.  Some of these maxims are in Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science.  These maxims give the rationale and the how of how you figure it out.  Every once in awhile, one of them gives you a grip on existence.

For instance, one maxim was, “Take a body of knowledge that has produced bad effects and results.  You move it out and pay no further attention to it.”  You can eventually corral the truth by elimination, by this approach. You use this all the time when analyzing cases.  You see what didn’t work, so you don’t run the PC on that.  The reverse maxim doesn’t happen to be workable.  Something having been true in one instance doesn’t prove that it has any wide workability.  Auditors who don’t realize this get stuck in a win with some offbeat process or approach, and wind up with failures.

In trying to pilot a way through the goals plot, when items read one day and not the next, when they checked out and then turned out to be something else, LRH had a datum to cover the situation:  “A problem is as complex as it presents potential solutions.”  It is the number of solutions, not their complexity, that determines the complexity of a problem.  This defeats the idea of the “one shot clear”, beautiful though the dream may be.  The problem of government must be terribly complex, since it has had many many solutions. It is not that a big solution equals a big problem.  It is that a complex problem equals many solutions.  This could be the situation that you are faced with when a PC doesn’t respond well to processing.  It could be that you have a complex case on your hands that will only be resolved by a complexity of processes.  If a person’s problem in life has required many solutions, then it must be very complex and will require a complexity of processes to resolve. Simple solutions don’t work on complex problems.  You don’t resolve all political problems by voting democratic.

There is another maxim:  “A solution must be as complex as the potentials of the problem.”  In this context, “potentials, means “threats along the dynamics.  Here, you are talking about a dangerous problem.  For instance, a problem that has the potential of knocking out survival along various fronts is a big problem.  You will get defeated if you offer a simple solution.  If a person has a dangerous problem and you give him a simple solution, he will reject it.  Problems that are simple don’t become dangerous.  Only complex ones do.  They require complex solutions.  If this were not the case, the person would have solved the problem already.  A problem wouldn’t be dangerous if the problem hadn’t been allowed to coast along pretty far.

The proper course of action in handling a problem is to find out all aspects of the problem that must be solved.  There are bound to be some that are not apparent at first.  Find how many solutions will be needed.  You could look it over by dynamics.  The procedure is:

1.  Get what the immediate pressure is.  Indicate that there has to be a solution.

2.  Get the situation differentiated out into its component problems. Indicate the necessity for a solution for each.

This takes the confusion out of the situation.  Just getting the guy to sort it out makes him feel better, because he can now at least see the area better.  Also, you have put the buffer of needed solution” in front of every element of it.  The PC will be half way handled just by that action.  Then you can find solutions on a gradient.  He could start gradiently to see which problem could be solved now.  This makes Level 0 a breeze, when it is usually rough.  Level 0 is rough because most people’s problems are so big that they don’t know they have them.  They don’t look at the importances in their vicinity at all!  Man is in this condition because no solutions have been possible.  Simple solutions to complex problems fail.  The International City idea is good and complicated.  It has to be, because of the size of the problem that it is trying to solve.  The usual solution, “Vote Republican!.” is utterly useless.

As you go up the levels, it may appear that you are confronting more complex problems, but actually both problems and solutions become simpler, as you go up the levels.  As you go up, you are actually confronted with fewer problems and fewer demanded solutions.  The psychologist and psychiatrist think that you go down through Man’s psyche to the bottom.  They are wrong. You are there.  You have to go up, to heightened awareness.  A person on his way up has to get more and aware of kinds of awareness and of existence.  His only route is up.  Psychiatrists think that you have to go down in Man’s psyche to get to rock-bottom motivations, etc., through three or four sub-volitional layers.  This is untrue.  You don’t go down in Man’s psyche. You are there.  There isn’t any hidden, deep motivation.  All you have left is the individual, and he is motivated.  You have to go to higher levels.  “This fellow hasn’t got an unconscious to be probed.  He is unconscious.”  The psychiatrists are looking for the wrong thing.  They are looking for the hidden depths below a guy’s level of awareness.  Those “deeper levels of unconsciousness” that they are looking for are sitting in the chair right in front of them.  It is not the recesses that are hidden.  You can’t get the individual further down, with drugs, etc., and learn anything.  In order to discover anything about the individual, you’ve got to make the individual more aware, not make him less aware, in order to find out more about him. Psychiatrists are asking the fireman in a ship to help them find the fireman. And the fireman, having lost his identity and beingness, will willingly try to help out by looking for himself.  You are looking for Man’s spirit, but he is the spirit.

A thetan’s increasing awareness of his beingness, his awareness of existence, and the problems and solutions of life are what delineate the seven levels of processing.  You could draw up the levels just by asking people at various levels, “What is a problem to you?” If a person’s awareness of his relationship to existence is increased, you can bring about a heightened condition of livingness, performance, ability, etc.  And that is the only way to do it, regardless of claims for drug enlightenment or high performance on drugs.  Drugs reduce awareness.  People can think that they perform better when drunk or drugged.  That is because they are less aware of their condition.

The “logic” that if we became a little less conscious, we would be a lot better off has been extant since the beginning of this universe.  The “final solution” to problems has been to become unaware of them.  The penultimate solution is, “I’m doing right,” the assumption that whatever you are doing is right.
So if someone wants to improve himself, he has two courses:

1.  To become more aware.

2.  To become less aware and hope that you don’t get run over.  The latter is treacherous.  It is hoping that everything will be all right. Hope substitutes for control, confront, awareness, and certainty.  “I’ll just forget about it and hope that it doesn’t bother me.  I’ll become less aware,” is the idea.  For instance, women in the 19th century fainted as a solution. This is like the “black panther” mechanism, only worse, because one is not simply ignoring the black panther; one is becoming unaware.  People get somewhat terrified when you reverse the flow on them and get them to confront all the things of which they have become unaware.

The trick of becoming unaware is that you never actually get there. “This universe [is] a progress towards less and less awareness.  It’s the route to total sleep.  And the trick ... is that it’s so rigged that you never get to sleep.  The lower you go, the more problems you’ve got, because now the littler problems seem bigger.”  Becoming unaware of the big problem brought the thetan less power or force.  It reduced his confront.  So now he is less able to confront little problems, so the little problem now seems as big as the big problem seemed one stage back.  It seems far more threatening.  The power and threat of the big problem is vested now in the smaller one.  There was a bigger problem of the same gradient that he had ceased to confront: [say, a gale].  He became unaware of it almost purposely, and this put him into a confront only of a slight wind.  But the big problem was full of terror, so the breeze is full of terror.  There is the trick of uncovering hidden memories.  Occasionally you can uncover memory by trickery, and increase the PC’s awareness slightly, and he will lose a little fear, but it doesn’t improve his condition much.  He just shifts to another fear. [“symptom substitution”] “All little fears are irrational and are based on a bigger fear.” Freud pointed this out.  This happens because “the individual solves the bigger fear by becoming less aware.  You can find the bigger fear that caused the lesser fear.  This is what Freud was looking for.  But you can also throw the PC into the bigger fear and knock him for a loop, by not bailing him out.  You mustn’t increase a person’s awareness beyond his ability to confront.  He has the choice either to cognite or to bolt.  He is very likely to bolt.  That is why analysands commit suicide in analysis, when they do.  Don’t process by reaching into the deeper states to find the fears that motivate this individual.  “There is no deeper subconscious for the individual to go [into].”

If you exteriorize a person without taking off the charge of why he was in his head, if you take him out of his head and make him confront problems that he had gone into his head not to have to confront, you will find that now you can’t get him out again with a can opener.

You can put someone into a higher level of awareness.  He now becomes aware of the problems that he has not handled.  This alone makes it necessary for him to progress by gradients.  You will make it as long as you let him sit down for awhile and enjoy the view.  He is a victim of self-created charge, great masses of it.  When he gets more aware, he backs off from it.  You have to take charge off by getting TA action.  Then he can easily move up to where you can get more charge off.  It is not a spectacular activity.  As the PC moves up the line, his problems look bigger, but only because he can see more.

“Reduce the complexity of the problem by reducing yesterday’s solutions.”  This is the key to processing.  A person at Level 0 has dangerous problems and must have complex solutions.  How do we get around all this?  The old solution is what he is sick from.  Cures, cures, cures:  It is no use to solve somebody’s problems for him.  What gets us away from this is that we aren’t giving people solutions.

The basic error is the most fundamental part of the problem that can be as-ised, because of the chain of solutions.  As an auditor, you “are not giving the PC new solutions for his livingness.  You are taking out of existence old solutions, which now exist in the form of problems....  You’re as-ising what has been solved in the past [and caused the person to] become more unaware....  You’re as-ising old problems.”  You are as-ising past solvents.  You are backtracking the way he came down.  Running solutions is running yesterday’s problems.  You are taking out the old think that made him drop doing and be [un]aware.  On R1C and R1CM [This is R1C with the meter. You follow the BD after you complete the cycle of action you were on.  See p. 623, below.] you are backing the PC through yesterday’s problems, by getting his solutions.  If you run such a thing as a problem, you are running it below its proper level of awareness.  Here is the trick:  A problem, by definition, is something that you can’t confront, and a solution is a way by which you don’t have to confront something.  So your effort to handle the problem is to solve it, and if the way in which you solve it is to become less aware of it, you have moved into lower awareness levels.  You are looking at yesterday’s solutions.  Whether you are running problems or solutions, you are actually running solutions.  When you ask for problems, you are asking for something that the PC couldn’t confront.  When you ask for solutions, you are asking for something that the PC could confront.  Running problems requires you to confront only the PC’s no-confront.  Therefore, you don’t run problems.  You run solutions, which latter really are problems, but which can be confronted. “It’s the difference between running no-confront and confront ... , [though you are actually running the same thing, from a different point of view.] If you call them problems, then you are saying the individual couldn’t confront them.  If you [call them] solutions, then you are saying [he] could.”  So when you run solutions, you get rid of the problems that he sets up to avoid confronting things, by backtracking his solutions.

When you do this, the PC becomes more aware and more capable of confronting, up to the point where he can confront the problems that made him decide to become unaware in the first place, and he finds that those, in turn, were solutions, so he finds out what that was a solution for, etc., and he is all set to move on out to freedom.  This way out is Route 2.

This principle holds true all the way up.  GPM’s were very complex solutions, which must have had complex problems behind them.  The main problem was an unwillingness to confront.  So you don’t ask the PC to confront it all at once.  You do it gradiently.  That is why levels are there.  They are there on the basis that the individual, at any given time, is at his lowest level of awareness.  You bring him up from there, not down.”  [You] reduce the complexity of the problem by reducing yesterday’s solutions.”  You’ve got to walk him back up into further awareness for him to hold his own in the environment he has now entered.  That is how to process someone.  That is why a manic sometimes turns on, where the PC gets boosted up a bit too high for him at a particular time.

So realize that you are getting off the charge that debars the individual from confronting the problems that he has.  The most complex being you will confront is the lowest-level PC.  If you reduce the complexity of the problem by as-ising yesterday’s complex solutions, you can get charge off, and the PC can act better now, because his awareness level came up.  When you first ask for a datum, you won’t get it, but you will get off charge.  Then, when you ask for the datum again, since you have gotten charge off the area, you will get it.  This is how processing works.

“The road into this universe is successive unawarenesses, and the road out is successive awarenesses....  He got himself into trouble by solving himself into trouble....  There are no lower levels of awareness for you to explore.  There are only upper levels.” The road out is not spectacular.  You take the PC out via the road he came in: successive unawarenesses undone. 

T H E  A U D I T O R
THE SAINT HILL JOURNAL OF THE AUDITORS DIVISION

Issue 1				May 1964

The Workability of Scientology

by L. Ron Hubbard

IT’S THE LITTLE THINGS THAT MAKE SCIENTOLOGY WORK, not the big crashing reasons why the preclear’s mind isn’t perfect.

It isn’t finding what’s wrong with the preclear that really counts, it’s the auditor’s craftsmanlike attention to the little points of auditing that makes for big gains.

Just one effective, received acknowledgment that makes the preclear know he’s been acknowledged may be worth a dozen processes!

An auditor becomes an auditor when he or she finds out that it’s the basics that count.

And this can be very hard to teach. The auditor who is so sure that all the errors are explained by the condition of the preclear seldom gets results. And it’s results that count. You can get results with Scientology and get them rather easily, too, so long as you know that the way the auditing is administered to the preclear is more important than the process run.

An auditor who consistently fails to get results is always the auditor who is most sure that all the errors for failure lay with the preclear or Scientology, and never with the auditor’s own basics.

How difficult it is to see oneself! How easy it is to blame the other fellow.

When I first started to teach by self-appreciation of one’s own auditing here on the Saint Hill Course, even the most veteran auditors were completely baulked. They have surmounted this now, but it was a mighty high hurdle for a while. The saga of it was quite funny. I had the auditor give a session which was recorded on tape. Then I had the auditor listen to his own session to find out his or her errors in basics.

Well! You should have seen some of the early reports I got! I even did an HCO Bulletin to show what to look for, but to no avail!

Some reports gave the session command by command. Some gave all the preclear’s errors. Some went Russianesque in “How horrible I am.” But at first nobody, just nobody, caught on.

Let me give you the example of the first test made to show what I mean. I taped a session noting needle action and condition of the preclear during session. Then I listened to the tape. And I found that every time the auditor had gotten a dirty needle or a bad reaction from the preclear, the auditor some minutes or seconds before had slipped up on his basics. In other words I found that these basic errors were causing all the bad preclear reactions.

I found that the auditor made the session always and the preclear never. The preclear got better because the auditor audited with smooth basics or got roughed up because the basics skidded a bit—a slip-up on an acknowledgment, an over-hasty command, a failure to let the preclear fully answer the question. Seconds or minutes later, a bad reaction appeared in the preclear.
As a result of such studies of taped sessions, my complete conclusion is that it is only the auditor’s handling of the session that makes the session. There is nobody and nothing else to blame. Because the preclear’s bad reaction comes later than the auditor’s skid in the basics, the auditor often does not connect his error with the preclear’s reaction and thinks it is just the way the preclear is.

You’d think this would be easy to learn; but no, student reports continued to come in about their taped sessions that completely avoided the point. These reports described anything and everything except the Auditor as Cause.

Examples: “The session went badly because the preclear had had no sleep.” “The session was slow because the preclear had a present time problem.” “It was late in the evening, and the preclear always has a high tone arm after 9: 00 p.m. “ “The Instructor had given me another process, so when I tried to change the preclear got upset.” “This preclear is always critical of auditors.” “I had to end off because the preclear was upset.”

Horrible. In no case was the auditor making the session. The session always depended on outer influences. Next thing I’d have heard, “We didn’t have a good session because the stars were not in the preclear’s favor.”

Then some light began to dawn here and there and they started to make it. The students began to see that the failure of the preclear to progress was due to auditor errors, not preclear meanness. And these are the things the students learned:

The preclear’s upset is traced back to a failure to acknowledge well, to chopping the preclear’s communication, to a failure to give the preclear something to answer, to evaluation, to invalidation—not to the late hour or the position of Saturn.

An auditing session is made. It doesn’t just happen. ARC Breaks are constructed out of bad basics. Failures to improve a preclear begin with failures to do good TRs.

An auditing session gets wins only when the auditor is right there running it and running it smoothly.

The whole essence of auditing is not finding what is wrong with the preclear and hammering at it. That’s a medical-surgical approach, not a way to betterment. The essence of auditing is ARC handled and controlled by the auditor.

The auditor gives the preclear something to answer. The preclear answers it and when the preclear has answered it to his or her satisfaction, the auditor acknowledges it. That’s auditing. That’s why auditing works. That’s why the tone arm moves. That’s why the preclear gets better.

But that simple cycle can have a thousand ways to go wrong. The auditor gives the preclear something the preclear doesn’t understand and can’t answer. The preclear isn’t permitted to complete his or her answer. The preclear answers fully and then never gets acknowledged for it and rambles on.

Those are the things self-appreciation of one’s auditing should reveal.

Scientology has been getting fine results for a dozen years. In the hands of a good auditor, there are no big case failures. So it isn’t the techniques.

It’s this: What is a good auditor?

A good auditor is one who knows Scientology and its techniques and who audits with all basics in. That’s a primary thing we stress in training here at Saint Hill.

A good auditor gives the preclear something to do that the preclear can do, lets the preclear do it, and, when the preclear has, acknowledges well that the preclear has done it and promptly gives the preclear something to do. A good auditor never evaluates or invalidates. A good auditor understands what the preclear has said and never goes on until he or she has understood what the preclear said.

A technically skilled auditor can choose the very best processes, but unless these are run with all basics in, the wins are few.

That’s why I started the Saint Hill Course—to make good auditors become good auditors who could also make good auditors.

It’s been successful in the extreme here at Saint Hill.

But it’s still a battle with basics.

For whatever else an auditor must know about the mind, however valid the technology, it takes plain down-to-earth good auditing to pull preclears through.

For the only reason any process works is the auditor’s handling of the session and the basics of the auditing cycle.

Record some of a session you give, on tape. Note the rough spots for the preclear in the session while you give it. Play back the tape in private and spot exactly where and how each subsequent rough spot was caused by the failure of the auditor to observe basics.

Suddenly it shows up like a crashed airplane at a picnic. The auditor caused those rough bits the preclear went through—and the auditor caused them by failing to observe the simple basics.

There may be lots of other reasons, too, but these don’t give the preclear a rough time. They only make the pc’s progress fast or slow.

Preclears don’t fail because Scientology doesn’t work. Preclears fail only when Scientology isn’t administered with all basics in. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MAY 1964

Central Orgs
Franchise
Sthil Students
CLASS II MODEL SESSION
(Amends and cancels HCO Bulletin of 4 March 1964.)

The Class II Model Session has the benefit of requiring no other Rudiments process (except in the Havingness Questions) than the question itself. There are, therefore, no additional processes except Havingness.

Beware of any Q and A in using this script (HCO Bulletin 24 May 1962 [1] ).

Don’t stray off Model Session into unusual questions or processes. Use Model Session as the surround for processes to be run on the pc. Don’t use it as a process.

Questions are asked of the pc and not checked on the needle. Auditor watches meter and records TA.

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, “Put your hands in your lap.” “Squeeze the cans, please.” And note that pc registers on the meter by the squeeze read 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. (What you intend to run.)

START OF SESSION:

Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?

START OF SESSION.
Has this session started for you? (If pc says, No, say again, START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?)

BEGlNNlNG RUDIMENTS:

GLL: What goals would you like to set for this session?

O/W: 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.

Aud: Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? What difficulty aren’t you willing to talk to me about?

W/h: Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything you are withholding? (If pc says, Yes) What was it?

PTP: Do you have a present time problem? What is the problem?

START OF PROCESS:

Now I would like to run this process on you (name it). What would you say to that? (Get pc’s agreement; if not obtainable, choose another process unless old process is not complete.)

MIDDLE RUDIMENTS:

In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal, or been careful of? What was it?

END OF PROCESS NON-CYCLICAL:

If it is all right with you, I will give this command two more times and then end this process. (Gives command two more times.)
Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process? End of process.

END OF PROCESS CYCLICAL:

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.

END RUDIMENTS:

1/2-UnT: In this session, have you told me any half-truth, untruth, or said something only to impress me, or tried to damage anyone? What was it?

? or C: In this session, have you failed to answer any question or command? What question or command did you fail to answer?

Dec: In this session, is there anything you have decided? What was it?

W/h: In this session, have you thought, said, or done anything I have failed to find out? What was it?
Aud: In this session, has anything been misunderstood? What was it?

GOALS & GAINS:

Have you made any of these goals for this session? “Thank you for making these goals for this session,” or “Thank you for making some of these goals for this session. I’m sorry you didn’t make all of them,” or “I’m sorry you didn’t make these goals for this session.”

Have you made any gains in this session that you would care to mention? “Thank you for making these gains for this session,” or “I’m sorry you didn’t make any gains for this session.”

Env: In this session, was the room all right? (If can squeeze denotes down havingness, run hav.)

END OF SESSION:

Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?

Is it all right with you if I end this session now?

END OF SESSION. Has this session ended for you? (If pc says, No, repeat, END OF SESSION. If session still not ended, say, “The session has been ended.”)

Most flagrant errors that can be made:

1.	Fumbling with script, not knowing Model Session.

2. 	Failing to get in the R Factor by telling pc what you are going to do at each new step.

3. 	Doing only what the pc suggests.

4. 	Adding unusual questions or remarks or making sudden irrelevant statements.

5. 	Using parts of Model Session as repetitive processes which deter the completion of auditing cycles already begun.

6. 	Failure to complete the Auditing Comm Cycle on any part of Model Session.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6405C19 SHSpec-20 The PC and Getting Auditing to work

Any auditor who is having a hard time making auditing work has a mystery about how auditing can occur, whether he knows it or not.  He has assigned some value to auditing that is different from and extraneous to the actual value of auditing.  He looks for something more complicated than what is there.  If a student is having trouble, a third of the time it will resolve if you ask him why auditing doesn’t work and remove that barrier to his understanding of why it does work.  The session will be unmanageable to the auditor if he has trouble with his comm cycle, doesn’t understand why auditing works, and the PC introduces normal or extreme amounts of randomity into the session, with his own out-comm-cycle.  As an instructor, you have to get as much confusion out of this as possible.  A person who can’t get auditing to work is likely to have hidden standards.  You can ask:

“Why doesn’t auditing work?”   and “Why does auditing work?”  and 2WC it.  A person can’t understand why it works because he understands why it doesn’t work, and he is caught in this.  Discussing why auditing doesn’t work is not quite auditing, because you are taking TA blowdowns on what he has told you and getting him to relate these blowdowns to the question of why auditing doesn’t work.  You are steering him towards a cognition that will straighten out his auditing.

Another third of the time, you can fix the erring auditor by getting him to discuss help.  You do rot get him to discuss failed help, because you will run into the line plot.  He may spot some weird stable datum on help that impedes his ability to help or be helped.  Take up whatever BD’s you get independently, and clean them up, so he will start using the comm cycle.  The comm cycle is [almost] too easy to use, as long as the auditor’s intention towards the PC is good, and he is trying to assist the PC.  The things that make a person unable to use the comm cycle are those things that make a person believe that he cannot or should not assist.  PCs who get no TA action also have one of these buttons awry, so this procedure works well on PCs, too.

The third category is more esoteric.  It is very interesting.  It could be called, “Life Among the Lowly.”  (This was the subtitle of Uncle Tom’s Cabin.)  People who are being hounded by life, who are under duress, tend to offer up super-sympathy and grief at the same time that they are knocking someone’s head off.  There is a mechanism here, by which the lowly hold the lowly down, which is pretty vicious.  It is the “Poor you!” mechanism, how you, he, or they were wronged.  It is the victim syndrome: “You are a victim.” This is the common denominator of sociology.  It is why someone can never get out of the slum; it is how people get trapped.  We had this ourselves in the early days of dianetics.  LRH got away from it, seeing that if you can’t take responsibility for your own actions, if you can’t recognize the cause of your own difficulties, then you are in a trap and will continue in a trap forevermore.  For any “war against poverty” to be effective, it would have to contain an understanding of why people in groups remain poor.

“An individual must accept his own responsibility and his own ability as cause before he can run off his overts.  You can’t get off overts if you can’t recognize yourself as cause.  You can’t get out of a rat race unless you recognize your overts.”  You keep someone in a rat race if you don’t let him recognize his overts, e.g. by saying, “Poor you!  Look how you have been wronged!” You are telling the person that he was incapable of cause.  You are directing his attention to moments when he was not at cause and pointing out to him that he doesn’t cause things.  They just happen to him.  You put him into the dwindling spiral and hold him on the bottom of the heap forever, by “convincing him that he has been wronged, and that he himself never wrong[ed] anybody....  ‘You never had a chance!’”

How does a person become obsessed with a problem?  “Obsessed with a problem” describes 90% of your PCs.  They are stuck in some problem, via the O/M sequence.  They never recognize their own overt in the area, so they get stuck in it.  There are several systems that can be used to unpin them.  Chief among these is the O/W system.  You can’t get your hand cut off in a buzz-saw without reaching for the buzz-saw and somehow putting yourself in the vicinity of the buzz-saw.  Invented overts, as in a guilt complex,

That is just another alter-is, so watch out for this and be sure that the PC doesn’t give you untruths.  All dwellingness on a subject is associated with overts against that subject.  You cure it with one or another version of O/W.  This is something that is part and parcel of life, which is senior in its power even to GPM’s.  You could be free of GPM’s and still be subject to the consequences of your overts.  So it is always safe and indicated to audit O/W.

Auditors do this industriously but not always well.  They can make a complete mess of it, chopping comm cycles, buying trivia as overts, having mutual out-ruds, etc.  The reason tacit consent enters auditing, when it does, is because of the victim syndrome mentioned above.  It has entered the session to some degree.  When this happens, there is some thread of “Poor you: You’ve been wronged!” in the session.  If the auditor sits there and buys motivators, he is not auditing the PC at cause.  He is “auditing the PC at effect, and so the PC will not get better.”  Nothing can hold onto a thetan.  If he gets caught, he must have grabbed hold and forgotten that he has grabbed hold, to be trapped.  What he grabbed hold with is overts.  It is his own actual GPM’s that are holding him.  If you don’t get him to spot his overts, you are dramatizing “Life Amongst the Lowly”, the reason why people cannot get out of slums, the victim syndrome.  Slums operate on the basis of, “You can’t do anything about it.  Luck is all that can help.  How you have been wronged!”, etc.  That is why you see numbers rackets and lucky charms in slums.  “You can’t do anything,” is the message of social welfare, labor relations, the “war on poverty”, etc.  A thetan basically doesn’t want to commit overt acts. When he does commit them, he pulls himself back and withholds himself.

How does this affect the auditor who can’t audit?  It is not as simple as, “They believe that they have been wronged, so you have to get their overts off.”  It is that “this person has been so wronged that [he has] no longer any concept of an overt.”  The Christian ran into this from another angle, with the idea of repentance.  He wanted people to admit guilt, which is an inversion.  People get off false overts in an effort to repent enough.  This doesn’t free them.  The “guilt complex” leads to an inversion, where the person isn’t getting off actual overts, but is really bragging about overts that he would never have the guts to commit.  Don’t let the PC do this.  Check for untruths.

If a guy is in a victim valence, you get him to define an overt act and then get him to tell you why it isn’t an overt.  You will get an automaticity!  There is no reality on it as an overt act.  So you have to follow the reality scale and find something, possibly quite mild, that he knows and feels is a real overt act.  Do this on a discussion basis, getting why it wasn’t an overt act, not as an auditing action.  Once you get something the person really considers to have been an overt act, you might run out his justifications for having done it.  [See HCOB 7Ju164 “Scientology III and IV: Justifications” and HCOB 8Ju164 “Scientology III and IV: More Justifications”] You then proceed on a gradient.  Nobody in prison has ever committed a crime.

6406C09 SHSpec-22 The Cycle of Action: Its Interpretation on the E-meter

The most confused, maligned area around is the auditor and the cycle of action.  It is a difficult subject because it is all over the GPM’s.  It is not natural.  You scientologists, being a cut above the naturalness of normality, of course see something slightly wrong in the whole idea of time and its forward progress.  In his auditing, LRH found himself in an interesting state: looking at a zero or absence of time.  He found it not wholly pleasant, because without time, there is a lot of other stuff missing. He had a pressure on the face that turned out to be not from something, but from utter nothingness there.  This was very peculiar.  It was an escape from the time-stream which, at the same time, was more natural than being in the time-stream.

At one time, a thetan was quite capable of moving back in time to straighten out goofs.  Then he slipped into the time stream and has been moving along with it ever since.  You therefore have a natural antipathy for the idea that time is there or that something has a beginning, a middle, and an end, because this cycle is an authoritative action laid down by time.  But you are processing in the physical universe, through and across the agreement of the physical universe.  You are apparently going along with the time-stream and processing a bank that lays the time-stream in with an axe.  You are trying to resolve a subject, the bank, that is cycles of action to a terrible degree.  Mary Baker Eddy erred by shooting for too high a gradient.  As long as you are processing through MEST, you must take account of the cycle of action, even though it is not true at the highest levels.  Unless you pay attention to this, you jam the bank, and the PC will get into horrible difficulties:  high TA, etc.  The proper, precise order of things is very important, particularly at lower levels of things, especially with regard to the bank.  The bank is fiendishly precise.  The PC has to come up through confusion to confront this much order.  One of the keynotes of order, and the bank, is that things have a beginning, continue, and have an end.

“There the cycle of action is violated in the PC, the order of his bank is violated, and therefore it doesn’t as-is.  So the road out follows the cycle of action.  Where the auditor has nothing to do with the cycle of action, he has trouble, because he has thrown the PC below the fiendish demands of the bank.  We have found empirically that what you have to do is to parallel the cycle of action.  There is no detriment involved in doing so. Every time you process a PC without paying attention to the cycle of action, you are processing the PC against the bank.  As a result, the bank will jam, which will be manifested on the E-meter as a high TA and a badly-acting needle.  A PC who is not running well has, first and foremost, violated the cycle of action.  This is a broad enough statement to be fairly meaningless unless you get more details.

You could also say that the reason a case isn’t living right is that the cycle of action is being violated.  There are two ways in which a cycle of action can be violated, in life:

1.  Too slavish an obedience to it, where the individual was out of agreement with it in the first place but is forced to follow it.      

2.  Ignoring it.

All the “blessings” of the machine age lie in the first zone.  Don’t follow a cycle of action to the extent of overwhelming someone’s power of choice.  Oddly enough, there is one zone where a person’s power of choice can be overthrown and he can be improved.  By following a cycle of action repeatedly, to a point where the person is used to it, you will then begin to as-is enough bank to compensate for the loss of power of choice that you started with, which will when return.  You could force a PC through SOP 8C against his power of choice, but only so long as you repeated the cycle of action.  It isn’t the person’s power of choice that gives him reactivity. Power of choice and self-determinism get imprisoned in reactivity.  A cycle of action is the prison.  So following and running [and running out] a cycle of action will bring about nothing but a freeing of power of choice, whether the PC consents to it or not.  You have the determinism of the thetan -- his power of choice -- versus the fiendish cycle of action and precision of the bank and this universe.  The biggest overwhelm and loss of power of choice in this universe is in time.  This universe is a trap, because having started here, you inevitably get to there:  That is an overwhelm, because there is nothing that you can do about it.  The thetan knows that wherever he may be in space at 8:55, in ten minutes he will be at 9:05, no matter how much he protests. You can do something about being moved in space, so space is less overwhelming.  Hence movement in space from point A to point B is a smaller gradient.

You can approximate the action of time with the cycle of action. Progress through time is paralleled by the cycle of action.  It is very close to a process you might call “Make some time.’

This is a very funny process.  You can start the PC at point A and move him to point B and have him run into confusion between distance and time.  He has the illusion of moving through time.  In doing this drill, one differentiates space from time and thus obtains a new level of observation and freedom.  This improves the individual’s power of choice, at least to the degree that he has increased freedom to observe.  As a person gets out of overwhelm relative to something, he can perceive what is happening to it, instead of what it is doing to him.

O/W, in its essence, has never been understood.  O/W is not a lesson in morality.  It is a lesson in causality.  It is really a lesson in “What power of choice have you exercised in life?” However, it is hard to get someone to admit that he has done something wrong, because society tries to get him to restrain admission of overts, which is a big overwhelm.

Justifications refute the cause of the individual.  To justify is to state that one had no power of choice, and therefore, not being responsible, committed no overt.  In running justifications, you are getting the PC to own up to having been cause.  When you go for overts, you are going up against the social mores as the point of overwhelm.  You just choose this as the point of overwhelm.  Society tries to get the individual to withhold overts, in an effort to suppress him.  “In lower level processing, you’re choosing... society as the point of overwhelm [of the PC] and you are running O/W: ... You want the individual’s revolts against this overwhelm as an expression of his power of choice.”  Some point of agreement with society can be found in the course of running O/W, that will undo attention from society.  The mechanism is:

1.  One does things.

2.  One can’t own up to them.

3.  One then gets caved in on because of this.

You could ask, “What third dynamic activity have you gone along with?” Weirdly enough, this would eventually lead into overt acts.  The individual gets free to the degree that he can step back and look at the situation.

When we apply this [sort of process] to the sixth dynamic, we get a much more subtle level, one that is much less easily perceived: freedom from the time-stream; freedom from the cycle of action.  Time and the cycle of action are so woven into the PC, regradless of what level he is at, that even your address to the third dynamic, junior though it is to the sixth dynamic, is involved with the sixth dynamic.  The PC is shooting someone across space, standing on matter, in an action across time.  There is a sixth dynamic agreement that is overwhelming.  This is going on no matter what the PC is doing.  So in processing a person, if you violate that to an enormous degree, by out-cycles-of-action, the person won’t know what it is that is being violated, but his tolerance of that violation is terrible.

There are quits a few cycles of action that you could violate.  One is the auditing comm cycle.  That is the first one that shows up on a meter, even on a low-level PC.  The dirty needle you get expresses the jam-up of energy in the PC’s bank because of the violation of that cycle of action.  There is a disagreement with the reactive bank when the cycle of action is violated.  The meter measures energy manifestations taking place in the PC’s bank.

If the PC has one erg of attention or awareness and you are asking him to confront 8000 gallons of reality, he won’t be able to do it.  For instance, if you take a non-scientologist and tell him that he is the source of all his problems, he can’t confront it.  On the other hand, if a guy has tons of awareness or attention available, and you ask him to confront one pint of reality, he is going to view it as pretty unimportant.  “Just look at the horrible conflict between Russia and the U.S.!” “Yes?  well, what about it? So what?” When the individual’s attention level and the reality to be perceived are more or less balanced, cognitions occur.  You could violate some things, which wouldn’t be expressed on the meter, because they would be above the PC’s reality.  But violating the comm cycle will be real to the PC.

Another cycle of action that you could violate is a process cycle of action.  This one is expressed, not on the needle, but on the TA.  So:

1.  The auditing comm cycle is expressed on the needle.

2.  A process cycle of action is expressed on the tone arm.  

If you get TA motion on something, you have found an overwhelm that the PC can potentially get on top of, providing that you don’t leave him in a state of half-overwhelm, but complete the process cycle.  If you get TA going on some subject or area and keep on the subject until there is no more TA action, you have done completed cycle of action on the subject.  At that point, the PC will no longer be overwhelmed by the subject.  If the subject is real to him at all, it will register on the TA, at least slightly, and the PC will be able to overcome the overwhelm that he has experienced in that area.  He will process to wins, as long as you don’t leave him in a state of half-overwhelm on the subject by failing to complete the cycle of action.  He will object to not being brought through it, and the meter will react by freezing up.  It won’t freeze up immediately, but it will freeze up as you continue to leave unflat processes behind.

You can go on past the point where TA action has ceased.  People don’t usually err in this direction.  More often, they take an hour to get the subject in full view and the TA well started, and then they quit.  This goes against both the PC’s self-determinism and the cycle of action of the bank, which is what locks up the TA.  The trick is to find the point at which TA action ceases.  If the PC is stuck, you can go back through his folder and complete the old cycles of action that were incomplete.  When you do this, the bank will unjam.  Don’t ask yourself, “What will produce TA action on this PC?” That is an easy question.  What you should be asking is, “What has produced TA action?” Process in the direction of ARC.  Let the PC tell you about his problems long enough to find something that moves the TA, and then get into that, with an in-ARC process or something about solutions.  Always flatten what has moved the TA, no matter how long ago it happened.  Flatten what you get TA motion on.  This cycle of action is the only zone or area where you can overwhelm the PC’s power of choice [legitimately].  Don’t evaluate for him, but finish your cycles of action!!  You can be smooth and slippy about it.  Direct the PC’s attention back into the area and run the process to a flat point.

Find out what is real to the PC before you start, by getting him to itsa on anything and watching for TA, e.g. on the White Form.  If you are having trouble getting TA on a new PC and you can’t find any unflat processes from his earlier auditing, you still want to know what has given TA action.  If it wasn’t an earlier process or something in life, suspect immediately that the

PC was involved in some other practice analogous to scientology, that did get TA, but was left unflat.  Now crank up the sensitivity to +128, and ask, “What other mental practice have you been [in]?”, and watch the needle like a hawk:  Be specific.  Ask all kinds of things and sort out what cycle was incomplete there.  Flatten the earlier practice when you find it.  Get the TA off of it.  “All you have to do, if you don’t get TA action on the PC, is find out what gave him TA action that wasn’t completed.” If he is an old PC, suspect [not an earlier practice, but] objective-type processes.

When looking over auditing for unflat processes, you may find a lot of them and have to choose which one to start with.  In this case, you have to be careful, especially if you are advising someone else what to audit [case supervising], where you have less control and ease of observation on the things you check.  You want to be more certain and take fewer risks, under these circumstances.  And one thing that you can be certain of is that any objective process that gave TA will give TA, if it is unflat.  “The objective process is the one that’s most likely to have stuck the guy ... because it’s right here in the physical universe ... and it’s closest to the sixth dynamic.  Subjective processes are the least likely” to have hung-up TA.  The PC could have cognited later on a subjective process, in the course of running something else.  In advising auditors (case supervising), give advice that is very down-the-middle and certain, and if the auditor tells you that it didn’t work, find out in what way he failed to take your advice.

Meter manifestations at Level VI are different from the Level IV ones. You are used to TA action taking some time to occur, or run out, below Level LI.  But two to three sessions worth of TA (at levels 0-IV) occurs in ten to fifteen seconds at Level VI, and that’s all the TA action there is to be had. You don’t even see all the TA action that occurs.  Some of it doesn’t go through the meter.  The TA action flattens fast at higher levels.  Don’t overrun the guy.  You will drag in TA from somewhere else if you do.  If you let the PC go on and on, you will get TA action from the next item or bank, which violates the cycle of action.  All the bank objects to at Level VI is overrun -- the cycle of action being extended beyond its end.  If you overflatten TA action, you get an exaggeration of the dirty needle that looks like a small rock slam, a sharp-edged dirty needle, a “tocky” needle.  The dirty needle expresses TA action prevented from being completed.  The tocky needle results from taking more charge off an item then is really there.  It expresses the fact that the TA action is all completed.  If you continue, you can finally drive it to a stuck needle and a stuck TA.  When you ask, “Am I invalidating a correct line-up?”, the needle smooths out.

If you are dealing with the thing that enforces a cycle of action on the PC and on life, it objects to a cycle being overrun.  It resists a created cycle of action that isn’t really there.  If an item has been left charged, a new item won’t read properly until you clean it up.  Suppose you haven’t left anything charged, but the new item is suppressed or something.  In this case, when you look for an earlier charged item, the needle will go tocky.

All the bank objects to at Level VI is the cycle of action being extended beyond its proper end.  The bank raises Hell when you create a cycle of action that wasn’t there.  The needle will show you that this is happening by getting tocky, and you can indicate the overrun and continue to the next cycle.

6406C16 SHSpec-23 Communication, Overts, and Responsibility

People who have been in processing for some time can forget the degree to which other people are wrapped up in and in contest with, their environments. This is the direct key to the case!

Your first job, as an auditor, is to find out what the PC’s environment is.  You should also be able to recognize that PCs can get down to the level of where their only concern is to handle some problem in their environment. This PC is not going to OT, just to a sigh of relief.  A contest is not necessarily fisticuffs.  It is just that there are different ways of reacting to the environment.  At lower levels, anything the PC is doing is an effort to handle the environment.  This effort could even amount to catatonia or complete immobility.  The method is not necessarily smart.  But down to the lowest rung, the person is still in contest with his environment and trying to handle it.  A thetan never gives up.  The methods he uses are solutions. Their frailty is so great that you can unsettle them quite easily.  The more irrational the solution, the more easily it is unstabilized.  It is amazing that this fact hasn’t been realized much sooner, by earlier practitioners.  An irrational solution has more points to it.  Therefore, it is harder to maintain.  A madman works at staying mad.  The only requisite to unstabilizing this solution is communication.  There has to be contact to do it.  A probable reason why earlier practitioners didn’t see how easy it was to unsettle the irrational solution was that the first step, getting into communication, was so difficult.  A person could have so much trouble with this point that he forgets that if he could communicate, would be simple to unsettle the aberrated solution.  Psychotherapy parks on the subject of communication. Therapists get so frantic that their efforts to achieve communication get more and more frantic and brutal, culminating, eventually, in electric shock and prefrontal lobotomies.  Part of the trouble is that the psychotherapists think that they can reach the patient by doing something to his brain.  [Gestalt and “touchie-feelie” therapies satisfy this same need of the therapist’s to reach the patient, in a less destructive, but equally ineffective way.]

To do anything for a person, you must be in communication with that person.  You must be reaching him and receiving comm from him.  Don’t assume, however, that communication solves all.  Communication is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for helping someone.  In the lower levels, where scientology breaks down, it is in the area of effort to communicate to the being.  That is why the auditor gets weird notions about what he should do to and for the person.  That is where every psychotherapy breaks down, and it is true for scientology too.  You have to keep acknowledging the PC and giving the next auditing command.  That is what you have trouble getting across to lower-classed auditors, and that is why you work on keeping the comm cycle in.

You are working along a communication channel, in order to accomplish a result with the PC, so you must keep the channel in good repair.  What makes a level, in scientology, is a gradient scale of what communication can be entered in upon with the PC.  For instance, at Level 0 a PC can’t yet be talked to.  Once you are reaching the PC and he is responding to you, you can take up the goofiest solutions he has for his environment.  You are trying to alleviate his contest with his environment.  The fact that he is in contest with his environment barriers communication from his environment.  A person solves his environment by withholding from it.  He will eventually solve the fact that he is being communicated to from his environment during auditing by moving you out of his environment.  The PC is having trouble with his environment.  He is not having trouble with you.  Therefore you can’t be part of his environment.  You are thus no longer part of his normal environment. Hence, he will talk to you, even if to no one else.  He says, “There are human beings and I don’t want anything to do with them.  And then there are auditors.  They are different!”  So the auditor takes on holy proportions. [This seems to be the real explanation of “transference”.]  Similarly, attacks on scientology make scientology supernatural to justify their overts on us. [Scientologists can’t be considered normal people, or the overts would not be justified.] The Melbourne Inquiry goes along this way.  The organization has taken on a supernatural aura.  If you can reach and talk to people when others can’t, you will immediately assume some special status with the PC who is aware of this.
Don’t bother to deal with this issue with the PC.  [Unlike psychoanalysis, which dwells on the “transference”.]  Once you have your communication line in, use it to handle whatever contests the PC has going with the environment. You can use whatever you know of the communication formula to get some communication established, then gradiently improve it and move into other processes.

Just getting into comm with the PC is likely to give him some benefits, but don’t stop with that.  Communication isn’t the end-all.  It is merely the channel.  Now you are set up to do something for the case.  Scientology is the only discipline that can uniformly:

1.  Accomplish a comm line.

2.  Use it to increase communication.  and then 3.  Do something for the individual.  Don’t stop when you establish communication, even though the mere establishment of a comm line is beneficial.  The PC will look better around you because he is in ARC with you, so don’t forget that he may still be batty around others.  If you don’t do something for the PC, you may find that, while he is calm and sane in your vicinity, he is just as nutty in his environment as ever.  You may feel that you have cured his battiness, when it is only resolved around you.  So you don’t believe him when he talks about how bad life is.  Don’t “make the mistake of saying, ‘I’ve cured him because I can now talk to him.’” All you have done is to set him up to now do something for him.  Communication is the beginning, not the end.

Now, after establishing communication, you must find out what, in his environment, is dangerous and menacing, and what means he is using to combat these elements.  You shouldn’t use “Problems and Solutions” too long, beyond the opening part of the case, or you will restimulate the problems and solutions in his GPM’s.  Problems and Solutions isn’t the basis of his activities with his environment at all.  It is what the PC does to solve his environment that keeps him obsessed and pinned-in against the hostile elements in his environment.

How do you know that you haven’t handled the PC’s PTP?  He is going to do something about it, so it is not handled.  That is the biggest index you have.  So you want to find what the individual is continuously doing in his environment.  This falls under the heading of O/W, not problems, because the more he does about the problem he is stuck in, the more he will be obsessed by it and the more he will be stuck.  What brings about an undue concentration on a subject and a conviction that a person has a tremendous conflict with his environment?  It is because he doing something about it all the time.  For instance, a person who is hung up on the U.N. must be doing something to or about the U.N., this lifetime.

A person’s way of fighting some part of the environment can take innumerable forms.  He feels that he had better not communicate with the environment because he is going to commit overts.  He is mucking up his communication with the environment, therefore, because his communication with the environment is a series of overts.  So therefore he has to not communicate with the environment, because it is an overt against the environment.  So he had better have some kind of wild solution, so he won’t have to communicate with his environment.  [In summary:

1.  An individual keeps doing things to solve his environment.  This doingness amounts to a continuous series of overts.

2.  So the individual considers that his communicating with the environment is an overt.

3.  Therefore, he has to stop communicating with the environment.

4.  So he develops wild solutions, so that he won’t have to communicate with the environment (like not looking).]

This is not at the communication level.  It is just riding on the comm line.  The individual has put up a screen against tigers, so he can’t see the tigers.  He just knows that he has to fight in that direction.  This may take different forms, e.g.  never looking in that direction.  Someone who doesn’t look at something has something there that he is doing something to or about. He does low-level overts, because he is afraid that he will do high-level overts.  The bank is manufactured in such a way that:

1.  The individual is forced to commit overts.

2.  He gets in trouble after committing those overts.  People are kept insane because the bank enforces commitment of overts and insures insanity if the individual does commit overts.

Even if the individual didn’t have a bank, he would get into trouble by committing overts, because committing overts violates the communication formula.  This is above the bank.  There are two mechanisms above the bank:

1.  The communication formula.  [Cf. axiom 51]

2.  O/W.  That puts the auditor in the driver seat early on, because he has two things that are superior to all the aberration that the PC can muster.  O/W is one of the frail spots of auditors.  You would expect the perpetuators of any trap to talk a lot about invasion of privacy and how people should keep their withholds, so they seize E-meters.  The most craziness is at the door to sanity.

Auditors’ reticence in pulling withholds is based on a fear of breaking down the communication channel.  They preserve communication so well that they never do anything with it.  An auditor can pussyfoot on getting overts from a PC, because he wants to preserve the comm line, but he hasn’t done anything with it.  The fact is that if the PC is pinned into something, he must have originated something that got him connected to the thing.  Then, once he is pinned to it, he gets into an obsessive “do” to straighten it all out.  This gives him more worries.  When a person is pinned, he thinks that he can unpin himself by more doing.  Actually, he can unpin himself by stopping obsessive doing.  Anyone can get caught in this mechanism, since it is the basic mechanism of entrapment.  What the individual originally did may not have been intentional, but he starts having to do more and more to handle it.

Sometimes the doingness in resisting a thing is to blow, having failed to handle it.  So if the person can’t leave physically, he may, for instance, get groggy, or show people that he shouldn’t be allowed to stay around.  There are innumerable ways in which a thetan can leave without leaving physically, all the way down the neurotic/psychotic spiral.  For instance, if one cannot leave a marriage physically, one may leave non-physically.  Complication stems from the number of ways in which a thetan can leave without leaving physically. For instance, a thetan can make others sorry they didn’t let him leave.  He can appear nasty, where he was happy before.  Psychotherapy could be called a study of ways of leaving without leaving physically.  So the sequence is:

1.  An individual commits overts.  Asserted Thereness.

2.  He commits more overts to get out of previous overts.

3.  He invents solutions to not leaving.  Asserted Not-Thereness

All this occurs on comm channels.  Being on a comm line, it is resolved by communication.  O/W (regretted reach or action), and the communication formula are senior to the bank.

The bank boobytraps this.  The word “withhold” is in the bank, so you shouldn’t use it.  It is too restimulative and gives false TA (i.e. TA unrelated to discharge) by virtue of just moving banks around.  In running withholds, therefore, substitute for “withhold” “what (the PC) didn’t say”. Use ““What haven’t you said?”
“One of the principal factors that you bat your head against ... in a case, is the inability of a case to admit any action or take any responsibility for action.”  If a case can take no responsibility for any action ever committed, that case has had it.  That’s any act, not just an overt act.  “A lost soul that’s being shredded between the worlds with a soundless wail is the person who can take no responsibility for any action he has ever done.”  That is where a case ceases to be in range of any assistance.  The case must be able to take some responsibility for some action, in order to be salvageable.  This makes those things that you can’t talk to pretty irresponsible, doesn’t it?  Well, they are.  “I can imagine a conversation, if you could achieve one, with a spider.” The utter irresponsibility of any action ever undertaken by the spider would be amazing.  Inability to communicate is an index of irresponsibility.  “As the ability to communicate drops out, responsibility for action, as a factor, falls,” and vice versa.  They rise and fall together.  A stutterer has some deteriorated area of communication and therefore a deteriorated area of responsibility.

A madman is as mad as you can’t get into communication with him.  The biggest problem with the madman is how you can get in comm with him: what gradient of comm to use, and how you put it to him that you want to find out what part of his environment he can be responsible for.  You could get in comm with him, one way or another.  He would eventually differentiate you from the rest of the environment.  Then you would have to find out where a guy is stuck and what he is stuck in, then find “what responsibility can he take ... for his own actions in that zone or area,” expand that perimeter, and you would return his sanity.  All you are interested in at lower levels is “responsibility for own actions or responsibility for lack of actions.”  The real difficulty is the getting into comm and really finding what he would take responsibility for.  An undercut would be to get a “done”, by reason of placement:  “Where have you been that you know you have been?”

Even though “communication” is in the bank, the formulas of communication are superior to the reactive bank.  Responsibility is also superior to the bank.  It is the woof and warp of being a thetan.  The questions are:  “Can you decide to do something and do it?  Can you be somewhere at will? Can you be in or out of something on your own determinism?” The overt-motivator sequence is not an ultimate truth, but it goes out, as a consideration, higher than any other consideration.  It is still a truth after other things have become lies, before it becomes a lie.  It gives you all levels of processing and cases from Level IV on down.  If you’ve got those two factors [communication and responsibility], you’ve got all lower levels of processing.
There is no real reason for you to be in the dark about why you are not making progress with a case.  Whatever other factors are present, these factors are more present.  There is one thing that gets in your road.  Someone can have a GPM keyed in to such a degree that it is driving him “round the bend.  At lower levels, you had better leave it alone.  LRH has tried reading a PC a list of words that might be causing the condition.  If one read, LRH told the PC that that word was an integral part of the reactive bank that was influencing him, and the PC ceased to be obsessively worried.  This is a bit dangerous, though.

If a person is glibly telling you what he has done in an area, it may be that he is not really taking responsibility for that.  The rebuttal, in this case, is to get the PC to explain, at length, how he has not really done this thing.  Eventually, it begins to dawn on him how he did have something to do with it.  This is an indirect approach to a lower-level case.  You can’t run it too long, because it is an out-of-ARC process.  At a little higher level, you could run, “What reasons did you have for doing that?”, as long as you don’t let him get into inventing them.

6406C18 SHSpec-24 Studying: Introduction

If you can’t learn anything, you can’t find out how to do anything.  If an auditor can’t learn anything, he will never know how to audit.  This is very fundamental, but all great successes are built on fundamentals.

Better than fifty percent of scientology consists of the discipline, technology, and know-how of application.  You could give the commands of scientology processes to another group of mental technicians, and they would get no results.  “Failure to duplicate = failure to understand = failure to apply.”

LRH and Reg dreamed up a course having to do with business and commerce, with scientology applied to them.  Reg executed the course, and it has been very successful.  It is a good-will gesture.  The only trouble is that everybody tried to get into the act, teaching their own courses to the same end.  Reg wasn’t worried about others duplicating the course.  People are aware, even with a perfect duplicate course, that they are not taking the real course in salesmanship.  Even on the copyist, this enters enough in the way of an overt or something like this, so that he then goes into an obsessive alter-is, and then it is true that they can’t duplicate it.

Professors in universities cause the loss of technology by writing their own books on their subjects instead of teaching the real source material, which they alter-is.  There were thirteen heavier-than-air methods of flight. The fixed-wing configuration wasn’t necessarily the best, though it was one of the easier ones to manufacture.  The fixed-wing system won out; the other twelve have lost, even though some were more efficient than the one that was easy to do.

In civilizations, it is customary for a body of knowledge to come into existence, then for some part of it to be duplicated and developed and other parts of the tech to get lost.  Civilizations die out because they lose their technology, apart from one gimmick that has nothing to back it up.

“Technology ... gets lost because people can’t study.” Civilizations tend to rise to a peak.  Then, under stress of combat or whatever, they lose their technology, because no one studies it.  For instance, the technology of the British silversmiths got lost when the Labor government taxed silver out of existence.

One problem with study is the amount of false knowledge around.  If a person studied without any judgement of what he was studying, or any evaluation of it, he would study very poorly.  Study has to do with one thing, basically:  willingness to know.  In order to study, one must first be willing to know.  Without a willingness to know, you can get systems that add up to no knowledge.

In scientology, we have one thing that is not easy to put into texts: the discipline of how you do it.  It is easy to transmit by example and is at least fifty percent of what we are doing.  This is a frailty for the future success of what we are doing.  It is the most likely thing to get lost.  What needs to be learned is not the commands of processes.  It is how to apply them.  In scientology, one is learning the doingness, not the processes.  The processes won’t work in the absence of the doingness: TR’s, comm cycle, metering, etc.

LRH decided to learn about study by doing a course in photography.  He had done the course up to the third lesson, already, and wondered why he stopped there, and why he occasionally bogged down, e.g. in the parts about optics and chemistry.  He realized that he didn’t know anything about photography, despite having done it since age twelve.  He realized that he had entered the course in a tolerant state of mind, willing to learn a few gimmicks.  And he realized that this attitude was incredibly arrogant.  He had always thought that the trouble he had had with photography was that they kept changing the methods.  He realized that the basics and fundamentals in the subject, which he didn’t know, had been present in the subject since 1860!  At that point, knowing that there was something to learn, he really started to study.  From three books in 3 1/2 years, he sped up to eight books in two weeks.  Arrogance and tolerance: the attitude that, “I know all about it, but I’m willing to learn a few tricks,” prevents a person from studying.

LRH’s standards of criticism have shifted.  What he was willing to take pictures of changed utterly.  He mastered fundamentals and reached a position of judgment and opinion on it.  Previously, he had had no judgment, only fixed ideas.  There is a big difference between an opinion and a fixed idea or prejudice.  One has fixed opinions when one lacks understanding of an area. In the absence of knowledge, judgment becomes fixed ideas.  LRH’s former ideas on photography had not been resulting in a finished picture.  Also, before this realization, he was the victim of external conditions.  If there was no sun, he could not take a picture.  After this realization, knowing your tools and darkroom tech, you are not monitored by conditions around you.

The breakthrough was, “There really is something there to learn!” This is a prime condition necessary for study.  So the first barrier to learning is the consideration that you know all about it, and you won’t let your certainty that you know be affected by the fact that you are not getting a result. Judgment depends in freedom from fixed opinions and on no need to protect yourself from your lack of knowledge in some area.  Judgment is impossible in the presence of fixed opinions.  To judge, one must know what one knows and what one does not know.  Judgment depends on knowledge.  It is not what a person knows.  It is what he can do.

An auditor’s ability to learn, then depends first on his willingness to learn.  “I know all there is to know,” and “I get no results,” shows lack of judgment on one’s own skill.  It is a silly statement.

Status has a lot to do with this.  One considers he must appear wise or clever or whatever, and pretends knowingness to give this appearance.  But in the presence of genuine knowledge, a real esteem takes the place of a false, self-generated esteem.  It comes down to a test of what a person can do. There is no argument with competence.  Psychiatry serves as a wonderful example of this.

To be a good critic of some area, you would have to know what could and what couldn’t be done in that area.  A person who already knows something about an area can learn more about it without feeling challenged, threatened, or insulted by the suggestion that he learn it, unlike someone who doesn’t know all about it, but wants to think that he does.

The only place our technology might break down is from unwillingness to learn it, stemming from the belief that one already knows it all.  This is one of those stupid fundamentals that stays in because nobody bothers to as-is it.  There is always a first lesson to teach, a basic entry point to learning a subject.  On the subject of study itself, this datum is fundamental.  Where you fail in instruction, you always omitted the first datum to teach.  

6406C30 SHSpec-25 Cause Level, OT, and the Public

What is wrong with you is this:  You are so bird-dogged onto the glories of OT that you are going to leave the rest of the world suspended between the lower rung of OT and the ground.  The bottom rung of OT does not sit on the ground.  There is a large gap.  So there has to be another ladder there.  The lower ladder could be called “cause level”.  A person can’t vanquish the sun and stars who is having a Hell of a time with his wife.  

We have had the definition of causativeness for a long time.  “If you could imagine an expansion of reach from an inverse self -- a not-imagined, unbelieved self, which he can’t reach, because it ain’t, because he doesn’t know, he actually sort of has to reach in, in order to reach out -- if you can imagine a reach that is this confused, that a person doesn’t even know which direction to go to get it, you’ve got Level O” and 99% of the human beings on the planet.

They are following the Pied Piper of science.  The blind alley of science is that Man is intelligent meat, a machine.  This leaves out the being himself.  According to this view, Man is a thinking brain nothing more.  There are two kinds of sciences:

1.  Classification, or naming things.

2.  Extrapolative: a science that derives answers.  

Modern science is just a classification science.  E.g. biology is nothing but classification.  It doesn’t let you learn anything.  To modern science, the science of Man is just another classification science.  “When they don’t know anything, they name everything....  If you don’t know the right name for the non-existent parts of the brain, then you know nothing about the mind.”  They go on the basis that Man never creates.  They try to understand the mind on the basis of the law of conservation of energy, i.e. that nothing is ever created or destroyed.  From that viewpoint, Man doesn’t make any sense.” Something would have to be done to him before he could do anything to anybody else.”  This isn’t true, so neither is stimulus/response theory.  Since Man isn’t really understandable on the basis of his never creating, the stimulus/response mechanism is likewise untrue.

After making wrong assumptions about the mind, modern science can’t understand it, so they sweep it aside as an incomprehensible subject: the humanities.  So we just classify and appoint authorities is it and say that it is an unworkable field.

Then the scientologist comes along and says, “Heresy:  Man is not a machine.  He’s a thetan, a being!” ‘We’ve taken that as our basic ... assumption, because we can demonstrate it.”  This violates the idea that the scientist has that nothing is ever created or destroyed.  The fact is, however, that Man mocks up his own mind.  This disagrees with the law of conservation of energy.  When you say, “mind”, the scientist receives, “brain”.  When you say that you can run out a troublesome part of the mind, he thinks that it would be easier to cut out part of the brain.  He has already accepted two falsehoods:

1.  Man is a machine.

2.  Man never creates anything.

You can prove the scientist wrong by getting a result on a preclear. That is a difference between us and the humanities.  Form is more important to the non-scientologist than the result.  “They have no end results, so they’ve begun to believe there are no end results in the field of the mind....  You ... say, ‘An end result can occur in the field of the mind....  You have to follow ... a very exact discipline to get this end result,’ and they don’t believe that.”  The end result is more important to us than how you arrive at it.  They lost interest in end results because they couldn’t produce any. They couldn’t produce any end results because they couldn’t accept these basic premises:

1.  Man is a being independent of his body.

2.  He is capable of creating his private universe, including his mind, complete with mass and spaces.  We cure a leukemia case, and the doctors say, “They couldn’t have!  It must have been misdiagnosed in the first place.”  You ask, “Why couldn’t he have had leukemia?”, and the answer is, “He couldn’t have had it, because it is incurable.”  I.e. leukemia is incurable, by definition.  They are trying to protect authority in an unworkable rationale that they themselves, down deep, know has failed.  Their question is, “How long can we put up the big bluff?” All analysts know that they aren’t getting results.

To get workable results, one must accept two things:

1.  A being is an independent thing that can exist independent of a body.

2.  A being is capable of auto-creation, all by his lonesome.  By doing this, he builds a mind.  A person’s own universe, or his bank, is not stuck in his skull but is plastered all over the physical universe.

The “scientific” premises about the origin of Man require at least as much assumption as our premises about Man’s nature.  The “life springing from an electrified sea of ammonia” bit is at least as bizarre as the Virgin Mary story.  Science starts assuming that Man is an inflow mechanism.  The reverse is actually true.  The former assumption won’t cure anyone.  The latter assumption will, always.  If you want to help a man, don’t get him to inflow. Get him to outflow.  That is why scientists cannot make Man well or solve the problems of the mind.

Man is actually an outflow mechanism.  You solve his problems on the basis of outflow.  If you want to prove this, watch what happens if you run someone on an inflow, e.g.  “Think of a motivator.” This will give you a high stuck TA and a PC who feels worse and worse, sicker and sicker, fuzzy and foggy, etc.  Actually, Man’s basic action is outflowing, and his basic error was an outflow.  He is restraining himself from outflow because of his experience of causing bad outflows.  He learned not to outflow, so he decided to inflow only.  Then he thought he could only inflow.  Then he caved in.  We get an end result by operating on this assumption.  We rehab the ability to outflow and win.  However, society and religion train people to operate on this reverse basis.  We are really in the line of religion, rather than science, if “science, means “conservation of energy”.  Science has only recently, i.e.  in the past hundred years, presumed to have anything to do with the field of the mind.  In space-opera, of course, science took over the mind, but without comprehension, so you got oddball damaging actions. However, space-opera science was capable of more damage than modern science. Our assumptions about the nature of Man are violently opposed to the assumptions of science.

That is the first ladder that you have to jump with people.  They have to get past the current belief that if you stuff something in the body, something beneficial will occur.

This is something that has confronted us in the past few weeks with violence.  Practically no one comes to St. Hill who is low on causativeness, since it takes outflow and causativeness to get here.  Out in central organizations or in the world at large, you run into more non-communication than is comfortable.  If you flee the non-scientology world after standing it for just so long, “it’s the level of causation that gets [on] your nerves.  It isn’t that they don’t talk your language.  It’s their non-communication.  It’s the fact that they don’t seem to connect with anything.” People have to be gotten up to recognition of the world around them.  Total introversion has to be changed to slight extroversion before there is any way that they can as-is items.  A guy can’t go OT until he has been gotten out of his total introversion.  The grades enable the individual to break through to the environment.  They get a person reaching, causative to a degree, extroverted, and able to as-is.  A person has to be able to cause, slightly at least, before he can as-is something.  When a person can’t as-is the bank, he is the effect of it.  A small percentage of the Level IV co-auditors were Type B when they started.  They weren’t really low on cause, but only when they were spot-on on the exact item with all ruds in could they as-is it.  These were people who had had a fair amount of auditing.  If you put a green PC into a GPM, even spot-on, he would do nothing to the GPM.  The GPM would make him sick.  You can take a Type A PC, who can usually as-is anything, and, if he is underfed, run down, or underslept, so that his body is soaking up energy, he will run poorly, with a packed-up meter.

If someone can’t as-is his personal problems, he won’t be able to as-is a GPM.  This barriered a lovely idea that LRH had, which only works on him.  If he finds himself thinking too hard about something, he can always skip down through the end-words and pick out the one that has gotten into restimulation, and let it blow down .  This is a bit heroic:  He thought that you could just take someone at Level IV and assess the end words, but you can’t.  The meter packs up almost at once.

When a person cannot as-is his bank because his cause level is too low, he will be the effect of his bank and he will get no disappearance of that is worrying him.  So whatever process you use, your whole task is to put the PC more at cause.  You run O/W to raise someone’s cause level, since O/W is a big barrier to his cause level, in that he has done something he regrets and, furthermore, isn’t communicating about it.  You run O/W to raise his certainty of having done, not just to as-is regretted doingness.  You will find that it is probably that few of your PCs have been answering the auditing question, since, while you are looking for something they have done, they are looking for an explanation of what happened to them.  Some PCs go plunging madly into the bank, searching madly for some answer that explains it all.  Such PCs invent things or give things that they are not sure of, in an effort to find the “right” answer.  A11 you have to do is be sure the PC is certain that he did the thing, without alter-ises.  In other words, you want an as-ising of doneness.  “All you want is the answer to your ... question, ‘What have you done?’, not ‘What have you done [that is] bad, antisocial, etc.’”  “I ate breakfast, and that is probably why ... “  is not an answer to the auditing question.  “As auditor, all you have to do is police and make sure the person is certain he did do that.”  “It isn’t the quality of the deed.  It’s just whether or not he has done it.”  Just make sure the PC is sure that he did that.  Otherwise, O/W will not work.

So you build up the person’s idea of what he can cause and what he can reach, until he can reach the lowest rung of the upper ladder.  You can convert SOP 8C and run it in such a way that the PC is sure of doing it. Distance has to do with reach, So on SOP 8C, you get a wider perimeter of what a person can reach Then, [on subjective processing] you get a gradient of what the PC can as-is in his mind.”  The object of all lower level processing, up to Level VI, is to raise the cause level of the individual.”

Don’t expect recognition or appreciation from society around you, when they don’t even recognize themselves as existing.  We don’t really have opponents except ourselves, if we neglect the lower ladder that people need to climb before getting on the ladder to OT.  O/W is the only thing that will key out a GPM without the PC’s having to pay attention to the GPM.  This is because O/W is senior to the bank and can therefore make a key-out clear. Then you can erase the bank.  To as-is, a person must have done something. Promote the idea of raising cause level, not so much the idea of going OT. People could understand that.

6407C02 SHSpec-26 O/W Modernized and Revised

There are two stages to auditing:

1.  Get into comm.

2.  Do something for the PC.  It is notorious that few scientologists will inquire deeply into exactly what someone did.  This is because, in order to do something for someone, one must have a comm line, which is supported or made possible by reality and affinity.  And where a person is too demanding, the affinity tends to break down.  So the auditor doesn’t want to break the affinity line.  Hence, he never gets into the second stage of processing, the one after a comm line has been established, in which the auditor does something for the PC.  The PC may feel miraculously better just from having a comm line established.  But the two stages are like walking up to the bus and driving off.  If you don’t drive off, you never arrive anywhere.

Any upset the PC has is actually so delicately balanced that once you have gotten in communication with the PC, it is easy to do something about the upset.  Batty ideas and doingnesses are particularly easy to get rid of, since they are based on very slippery logic.  You could have the guy’s case fall apart before your eyes, just from your asking, “What are you doing that is sensible?” and “Why is it sensible?”

Once your comm line and auditing discipline are perfect, so you don’t disturb the comm line, you can forage around amongst his aberrations to great effect.  A comm line is only valuable to the extent that you can use it to move around in the morass which he calls his ideas.  If you used the process given above, aberration would fall to pieces.  Use perfect discipline to keep in the comm line.  Audit well.  Get your comm cycle in.  Let your cycles of action be completed.  Then you can do something for the PC.  The discipline of auditing is what makes it possible for you to do something for the PC, unlike other therapies.  That is all it is for, in fact.  This gets you up to the door.  [Now you have to go through it.] The magic of auditing and the difficult part, is to get in comm with the PC.  Once you have done that, doing something for the PC is very easy, since his aberrations are so delicately balanced.  If you are not in comm with the PC, he presents himself as accused by you.  He justifies himself.  A PC who is in comm with the auditor won’t be trying to justify himself and uphold his status.  You can go out of comm with a PC by not doing anything for him.  You lose the R-factor with the person and you go out of comm.

A process is simply a combination of mental mechanisms which, when inspected, will pass away.  All auditing is subtractive.  It consists of as-ising things on the case.  You can over-audit, by trying to get more TA action from a process when you have gotten it all.  You can under-audit by leaving off before getting all the TA action out.  It takes only observation of the PC.  When you have done something for the PC, you will have gotten the TA action off the process.  If you have done something for the PC, TA action will cease, and it won’t stop until then.  Don’t do something for the PC after you have already done something for him, on a particular process or in a particular area.  If you go on in the area, you will only restimulate something else in the PC.  If you are clever, you will run a process that cyclically runs out of TA, and end it there, at the end of a cycle.  In R-6, you develop a sensitivity for when an item is dead, and you will leave it.  If you ask for it one more time, you are dead.  You will get a tocky needle and an ARC breaky PC.  At lower levels, you can get one thing run out, acknowledge it very well, and go on using the same process in a way which makes it a whole new minor cycle within your major process cycle.  Auditors who can’t do this have to run lots of different processes.  But they could get much more out of one process, if they got slick at directing attention.  You don’t necessarily change the process when the PC has cognited, if it is a general process that can apply to lots of areas.  Get the cognition out of one area, then find another area. You don’t have to change the process.  You can just change the subject of the process.  If you use this approach, you have to ask yourself all along, “Have I done something for the PC?” If you notice that the PC’s answers are dodgy, recognize that your comm line isn’t established.
Some processes, such as “What could you say to me?/What would you rather not say to me?” do two things at once: both getting into comm and doing something for the PC, e.g. by getting off withholds.

All this is a prelude to O/W, because O/W is the greatest comm line wrecker that an auditor has to deal with.  Withhold running is peculiar, in that it can put in a comm line, but it is avoided for fear of breaking down a comm line.  It can get confusing, when the same process that puts in the comm line to the PC also does something for the PC.  This tends to cause a confusion in which the difference between putting in a comm line and doing something for the PC gets lost.  O/W is senior to the bank.  That doesn’t mean that when the bank is gone, you will still have O/W.  It means that O/W keys out the bank.  Handled rightly, it puts in the comm line.  But if the auditor permits the PC to sit there with withholds in the session, instead of protecting his comm line, as is his intention, he ends up destroying the comm line by missing the withhold and letting the PC ARC break.

Another thing that makes O/W dicey is that the word, “Withhold” occurs in the bank.  Furthermore, “withhold” is an out-of-ARC process and cannot be run by itself.  “Done”, fortunately, does not appear in the bank, so you can run “Done/Not done”.  However, the common denominator of the bank is “done”.” Done” is a high order of lock on all forms of reactivity.  “Done to” is another part of the bank, unless the auditor uses a specific name with it, that is not in the bank.  [See p. 595, above, re use of nouns in processes.]

A PTP can be created by a failure to complete a comm cycle.  A method of handling PTP’s would be to ask the PC, at start of session, “Are there any communications you have left incomplete?” The PC would then rattle off several, and not register further on PTP’s.  The reason why he hasn’t completed the communication is because of the overts he has against what he has the PTP with.  You never have a PTP with something that you don’t have an overt on.  So first a PTP is based on or connected to an incomplete comm cycle, then to a done.  This follows the pattern of what to do in auditing. [See p. 642, above.] That is the way the bank stacks up.  Even a psychosomatic illness is based on an incomplete communication.  In extremis, you can handle psychosomatic illness as a PTP.  You can handle it non-adventurously with, “What communication to or about the illness haven’t you delivered?” Or you can ask, “What comm haven’t you completed to the blumjum?” The more adventurous cycle is the done.  And notice that you have just got the same cycle as that of auditor to PC: establish comm, then do something.  The severity of the illness has nothing to do with the speed of release of it or the difficulty of handling it.  The “What communication hasn’t been completed?” is easy.  It requires nothing of your auditing discipline, but it is the “lick-and-a-promise”.  The done takes more skill, knowledge, and perseverance.

The session patter could go like this:

Auditor: PTP?

PC: Yes.

Auditor: Any comm you haven’t completed?

PC: Blah blah.

If the PTP is then gone, then there is no need to continue.

If the PTP is not gone, then get off the PC’s overts.  There are seventeen ways to get off series of overts.  There are:

Overts in chains.

Recurring withholds.

Recurring overts.

Basic-basic of something.

Etc., etc.  You have to ask the proper questions to get the overts.  Suppose the PC keeps giving you the same (often minor) overt?  It is part of a chain.  You need to ask the right question and audit by chain.  You must also be prepared to find no overt at the bottom of the chain.

But Man is basically good, despite his reactive bank.  The bank is only composed to make a man commit overts, which is against his better nature.  The bank is the perfect trap, because having committed the overts, the individual won’t go on communicating.

You do not want to talk to people that you have wronged.  You withhold to prevent further overts.  That is the fundamental think of Man, before he goes so far downscale that he dramatizes obsessively.

“What have you done?” has two branches:

1.  What have you done that is socially reprehensible and prevents you from communicating with others?

2.  Just having done something.  

Both are valid.  But watch out for the PC using the process to look for an explanation of what has happened to him.  This PC will give suppositional answers, which you don’t want.  He will invent things he hasn’t done to get rid of the consequences that he is experiencing.  He is trying to find a good enough overt to explain what is occurring in his life.  He will often go far backtrack to find it.  Steer this PC back to where he belongs.  All you want is what he is absolutely certain that he has done, so you have to make sure that he is certain he did the thing.  If the auditor is asking A and the PC is doing B, the communication factor is out, so the auditor won’t do something for the PC.  You might ask, “What are you quite positive that you have done?”

O/W is likely to be the biggest area of recovery for the PC, provided the auditor isn’t too tender and will steer the PC.  You have to observe when the PC thinks that it wasn’t an overt.  If the guy gives you something he did as an overt but obviously doesn’t feel that it was an overt, then you must ask, “Why wasn’t this an overt?”, and get itsa.  Then you might ask, “Was this really an overt, after all?” At this point, you might get the glee of insanity.  Then you might get a long worry about this, with TA action. Eventually, he will realize that it was an overt.  Meanwhile, you are raising the cause level of the PC.  You could go into “done” in numerous other categories.  However, you may fail, in trying to direct somebody in these fields.

6407C07 SHSpec-27 Dissemination

LRH took pictures of the circus, at the request of its management.  He projected them on a 12’ x 12’ screen in the ring and had a party.  He told the elephant man, who had a swelling on his knee, how to do a touch assist two weeks ago.  It worked.  If someone asks you for help, do something for him.” I never tell anybody anything....  People come to see me wherever I go.... Putting a practice together has always been a mystery to me -- how anybody could miss.”  The only thing an auditor has to solve is the problem of what to live on while he is building a practice.  It could take three to five months. Get in contact with people.  Join social clubs.  People listen to you because you seem to know your business.  Dissemination is not a problem with LRH, because he doesn’t make it a problem.  Name and reputation don’t matter.  It is what you can do that counts.  LRH has signed things Rene Lafayette, Ken Martin, Kurt von Rocken, Winchester Remington Colt, etc.

There is no easy way to do anything.  There are some ways that are not as hard as others.  Being a pro in any field takes work, of one sort or another, physical or otherwise.  You have to invest some of yourself in it.  You have to know how you are going to use the data.  You had better know all there is to know about your subject if you hope to be able to solve a technical problem that may or may not have been covered in what you have been studying.  You may find that the problem is actually very simple.  Even though you know that what you are studying is inapplicable to what you are going to be doing, go ahead and learn it well.  If it is part of a formal course, finish studying it if you are in training, because you are liable to find out that its principles do apply after all, when you get “round the corner.  After you have completed the study, make your adaptions.  Put some of yourself in it.  Ask yourself, “How will I use this stuff?  How will it apply to me?” Study does you no good whatever, unless you go through this process.  Students in many fields: engineering courses, economics, etc., don’t consider what application they will put the data to, which is one reason they have trouble learning it.

Solutions are evolved, not from inspiration, but from observation, inspection, data, and familiarity.  Reach and withdraw runs off the barriers that prevent you from observing something.  You can overdo the studying by spending far too long gathering data.  This would indicate some defect in getting familiarity with what you are studying.  To gain knowledge or understanding of something, you need to be in touch with it.  ARC = U.  You can get too concentrated on one line and get so withdrawn that you lose touch with other things.  That is why LRH periodically goes charging off into contact with different areas.  Once in awhile, you ought to go look and see how people operate, so that they don’t get unreal.

In building a practice, you’ve got to work at it, but you can’t force it out of its own time-frame.

“I’m not a creature of ivory towers.  I get impatient with sitting at a desk, snowed under with dispatches.  That’s why we have scientology.”

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students

SCIENTOLOGY III & IV

JUSTIFICATIONS

The reasons overts are overts to people is JUSTIFICATIONS.

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

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

1. 	In this lifetime what overt have you committed?

2. 	How have you justified it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

MORE JUSTIFICATIONS

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

SOME FAMOUS JUSTIFICATIONS

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

It wasn’t me it was just my bank
You can’t hurt a thetan
He was asking for a motivator
He’s got overts on me
I’ve got a service fac on that
His overts are bigger than mine
My intentions were good
He’s a victim anyway
I had by-passed charge
I was just being self-determined
I’ve come up to being overt
It’s better than suppressing
I’ll straighten it out next lifetime
He must have done something to deserve it
He was dragging it in
I was in an ARC break
He needed a lesson
He’ll have another lifetime anyway
It’s only a consideration anyhow
It’s not against my moral code
Codes are only considerations
They couldn’t have it
They weren’t willing to experience it
I don’t see why I have to be the only one to take responsibility
It’s about time I was overt
They are only wogs anyhow
They are so way out they wouldn’t realize it
He’s such a victim already, one more motivator won’t make any difference
They just can’t have 8-C
I can’t help it if he reacts
He’s too critical
He must have missed W/Hs
Why should I limit my causativeness just because others can’t take it
It was my duty to tell the truth
He must have postulated it first
He never would have cognited if I hadn’t told him
I’ll run it out later
He’ll be getting more auditing

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

6407C09 SHSpec-28 Studying -- Data Assimilation

These are the points to watch in assimilating data:

1.  Nomenclature: Knowing what a word means.

2.  The subject matter itself: arrangement and understanding of the subject matter.

Part of the issue of nomenclature is knowing what a definition means.  We can’t use psychiatric terms in scientology, because the field of psychiatry has a different basis and purpose than ours, and their terms have implications that would give utterly unwanted twists to our knowledge, if we used them.  It doesn’t matter that they are the “authorities”.  An authority, in fact, is someone who can produce a result.  The world has elected people as authorities on subjects, when these people can’t do the subjects.  So if you recognized these authorities, you would get all crossed up with fields that had failed, and that would enter a degree of failure into scientology.  So we leave their technology and nomenclature alone.  We get results, so we are the authorities.  The existing terminology is actually false, since it is from a field that gives no result.

Our terminology has evolved and has become fixed on the printed page.  We have to safeguard what we’ve got, or knowledge gets wiped out.  We must first try to evolve nomenclature cleverly, so that it won’t conflict with earlier terms.  Then we must carry it forward as a standardized item to maintain a constant.  Another responsibility is to avoid developing too many new terms.

Any technical field has specialized terminology.  They are all snob languages, showing a superior understanding.  You don’t dare use carnival terminology in front of a circus performer, when referring to the same thing. As one becomes more expert in a field and gets more familiar with a subject, his terminology becomes less formal and serious.  It becomes more like slang, having passed through a phase of formal terms.  We short-cutted this process by leaving out the pompous formal nomenclature stage.  Reverence for nomenclature is symptomatic of being at the novice stage of memorizing the terms.

Knowledge is tremendously dependent on nomenclature.  This fact is almost never appreciated by teachers and students.  They are trying to talk and use a language that they don’t know.  This can get so bad that they think the subject is incomprehensible or that they are incapable of understanding it, when in fact they just haven’t grasped the meaning of some symbols being used to designate things.  Or their grasp is fumbly, not instantaneous.  As a person goes on studying past a point of uncomprehended nomenclature, he stacks up the opinion that he doesn’t know about it, carried on forward from the one term that he didn’t totally grasp.  He thinks he doesn’t know or can’t know a subject, when in fact he only doesn’t grasp the nomenclature.  The basic lie that makes incomprehension persist is that it is the subject that is not understood, when it is a word that is not understood.  A person will develop an automatic comm lag at the point of the non-understood word.  He will misassign the lack of understanding to whatever area it appears in.  A comprehension of the nomenclature used is vital, in studying anything.  You put yourself in the soup as soon as you leave one word not understood behind you.

Besides the subject of nomenclature, we have the subject matter itself: the arrangement and understanding of it, i.e. what is being named.  One should get a very thorough grasp of the thing under discussion.  A person can misunderstand something that he has read because it conflicts with the usual idea, or he can even find it unbelievable.  If you don’t agree with something that is true, it is either a misunderstood or there is a button that you are running into.  When you find something unbelievable, be sure you know what you are unbelieving.  First be sure that you have understood the words used.  Then be sure that you have got the thing, the phenomenon, right.  Ninety percent of the time you will find that you had something in crosswise.  In the other ten percent of the cases, you can handle it by setting up examples of how it applies to you and to life.  Get examples of how it is that way and how it isn’t that way.  You will generally find, then, that some button was in the way of your grasping it.

Following this sort of routine, you will find yourself able to study. Former methods of study, what few there have been, have not been very successful.  When there is no training available, about the only reliable method of studying is to read everything you can find on the subject, from cover to cover.

In studying scientology, it is imperative to know how to study, since we are studying that which we are studying with.  To classify students as fast or slow or bright or dull is to make a false classification, since this classification leads to no improvement of anyone’s ability to study.  There are students who can memorize words and pages virtually at a glance.  But this does not guarantee that they will be able to do anything with what they memorized.  You can find out, by seeing whether they can define the words.

The direction and end purpose of study is understanding.  With an unknown word or phenomenon in the middle of a subject, you will have mystery and non-application.

One of the primary criticisms of modern education is that it doesn’t immediately result in application.  You should be able to take any textbook direction and, if you have understood it, apply it directly and effectively without familiarity.  If you also have familiarity, as in studying auditing while auditing, you should be a whiz. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JULY 1964

Remimeo 
Sthil Students 
Franchise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSIBILITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no real excuse for ARC Breaking a pc by

1. 	Demanding more than is there or

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

FORBIDDEN WORDS

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

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

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

WHY OVERTS WORK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students

SCIENTOLOGY I to IV

MORE ON O/Ws

The Itsa processes for O/W are almost unlimited.

There is, however, the distinct must not at Level I, as at upper Levels, DON’T RUN A PROCESS THAT MAKES THE PC FEEL ACCUSED.

A pc will feel accused if he is run above his or her level. And remember that temporary sags in level can occur such as during ARC Breaks with the auditor or life.

A process can be accusative because it is worded too strongly. It can be accusative to the pc because the pc feels guilty or defensive anyway.

At Level I proper O/W processes can take up the troubles that are described as peculiar to some pcs without getting too personal about it.

Here are some varied Level I Processes:

“Tell me some things you think you should not have done.”

“Tell me what you’ve done that got you into trouble.”

“What wouldn’t you do over again?”

“What are some things a person shouldn’t say?”

“What gets a person into trouble?”

“What have you done that you regret?”

“What have you said you wish you hadn’t?”

“What have you advised others to do?”

There are many more.

These at Level II all convert to repetitive processes.

At Level III such processes convert to lists.

At Level IV such processes convert to how they weren’t overts or weren’t really done or justifications of one kind or another.

Care should be taken not to heavily run an out-of-ARC type process. This is the command which asks for out-of-Affinity moments, out-of-Reality moments and out of-Communication incidents.

All after charge is based on prior ARC. Therefore for a withhold to exist there must have been communication earlier. ARC incidents are basic on all chains. Out of ARC are later on the chain. One has to get a basic to blow a chain. Otherwise one gets recurring answers. (Pc brings up same incident over and over as you don’t have the basic on the chain.)

You can alternate an ARC command with an out-of-ARC command. “What have you done?” (means one had to reach for and contact) can be alternated with “What haven’t you done?” (means not reached for and not contacted).

But if one runs the out-of-ARC (not reached for and not contacted) process only the pc will soon bog.

On the other hand an ARC process runs on and on with no bad side effects, i.e. “What have you done?”

“What bad thing have you done?” is a mixture of ARC and out-of-ARC. Done reached and contacted. Bad wished one hadn’t.

So solely accusative commands upset the pc not because of social status or insult but because a pc, particularly at lower levels of case, wishes so hard he hadn’t done it that a real bad done is really a withhold and the pc not only withholds it from the auditor but himself as well.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JULY AD14
Remimeo
Sthil Students
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY III & IV
TA COUNTERS, USE OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L. RON HUBBARD

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

6407C28 SHSpec-31 Campaign to Handle Psychosomatic Ills

There will be a small popular textbook on the handling of psychosomatic illnesses.  Healing is nobody’s monopoly.  If it becomes anyone’s monopoly, it will be the monopoly of those who can produce results.  He who can do the job should be the authority.

There are three [actually four] aspects or types of illness:

1.  Predisposition, e.g. rats carrying disease, impure water, etc.

2.  Precipitation.

3.  Acuteness, i.e. acute illness or injury.

4.  Prolongation, i.e.”  any illness that goes beyond its expected term.”

When there is an acute injury or illness, one that exists right now, but is temporary, then there is a job for a medico.

He is the authority in that field.  That is where he is trained.  We should grant him that beingness.  If someone gets cholera, he is sick.  Get the medico.  Where the medico errs is in trying to take in terrain that is broader than the sphere of his authority.

There are two other things that happen in illness:  The predisposition or cause of it.  The medico is just faintly into this.  It is more the province of the public health officer, who is often an engineer, not an M.D.  Efforts to handle predisposition factors are put on a physical level: TB testing, industrial health programs, etc.  Medicine can’t often determine the length of time involved in predisposition.  It begins with an indeterminate point, as far as medicine or doctors are concerned, with a physical cause, e.g. a germ or malarial mosquito, or the alcohol that a drunk driver who injured himself drank before he drove.  Such things are what the medico attributes predisposition to.  They are physical things, not mental ones.

The other area of illness is prolongation: the perpetuation of an illness, the failure to recover speedily, by the expected term of the illness.  Doctors know the expected duration of the acute phase of an illness.  They have no way of estimating the period of predisposition, unless they can establish a disease contact.  Even that is not really accurate, since a person can be predisposed to a certain illness before contacting germs. contact with the germ is really precipitation of the illness.

So medicos are only slightly involved in predisposition.  They have acute illness as their exclusive purview, and they are totally ineffective in the area of prolongation.  Prolongation is a fuzzier area, since the treatment of the illness can contribute to it.  The medicos’ whole idea of prolongation is:

1.  Treatment not soon enough.

2.  Improper treatment.

3.  Complications.  

But prolongation can only be controlled to a limited extent by medicine.  If an illness enters the stage of prolongation, with complications setting in, the medicos tend to go into apathy, just like the patient, because there are elements in the prolongation of the illness that they can’t control.  Medicos understand predisposition by physical means; they understand the acute phase in physical terms.  In scientology, we would say that the cycle of action would be from the first contact [with the predisposing factor] to the end of the expected normal term of the illness.  The doctor can handle this cycle, but sometimes complications occur -- because of poor or absent treatment, in his view.  Again it is physical, but the medico tends to be rather apathetic about it or to go into frantic activity, e.g. repeated operations or “heroic” measures.  “Shock”, or postoperative shock, is a physical thing to a doctor. Usually, he can neither prevent it nor do anything about it.  He neglects any possible mental influence.

When you say “illness” and “healing”, the M.D., of course, thinks of a physical address to these, since this is what he means by these terms. However, most doctors know that they are up against something else when they are dealing with psychosomatic illness.  If you say, “psychosomatic healing”, this is way out to the doctor.  How the doctor somes to recognize the existence of psychosomatic illness is a puzzler, since this type of illness is not started by a physical contact.  The faults that the doctor finds with psychosomatic healing are only that:

1.  It encroaches on his field.

2.  He doesn’t understand it.  

The psychosomatic healer tends to overreach himself and to enter the field of physical healing, in which he is not trained, and he tends to inhibit or prohibit treatment of physical illness, when it exists. For example a doctor will, therefore, condemn a chiropractor.  He will point out that the chiropractor adjusted the slipped disc of ten patients and of course nine of them felt better.  But he did the same thing with the tenth patient, who was really suffering from TB, which, undiagnosed by the ignorant practitioner, subsequently caused the death of the patient.  Therefore a chiropractor is dangerous, to the doctor.  That is the professional M.D.’s professional objection in its entirety.  This argument is neatly handled by us if we send sick patients to an M.D. before we handle them.  The M.D. also recognizes that when he gets into the field of psychosomatic illness, he is in a never-never land he knows not of, because it is not purely physical.

An auditor can’t do much with someone who is acutely physically ill. Such a person has too much PTP and not enough ability to as-is.  Heavy, acute illness is a PTP, and you can’t audit over a PTP, so don’t try.  Get the PTP handled first, by a doctor if necessary.  Then the field of prolongation of illness belongs to scientology.  Don’t audit over a high temperature.  You could perhaps use a very simple process: reach/withdraw from the pillow, perhaps, and see if it works.  But that’s all.  The proper approach is to try to put such a PC in communication at a very low level.  If you don’t get a sudden resurgence, leave it.  There is no point in trying to complete whatever action you were on, because the PC is too distracted by his body problem to as-is what you were on.  Prolonged illness is in the field of psychosomatic healing, i.e. scientology.  A touch assist shifts the PC’s attention off of the place where the PC decided to stop the shock wave, and it discharges that part of the incident.  Thus a touch assist allows the incident to run through. The places where the shock wave did go to can be run out.  If you continued the touch assist, you would put the PC back at the beginning of the incident again.  Then you would have to run the incident out again.  [The reason why an engram persists is that it contains a lie.  The PC has tried to stop the motion, and with the stuck picture, has apparently done so.  But actually, the PC did not stop the incident or the movement of the shock wave through the body, so it has to be run through to be as-ised.]

So, when accepting a PC for auditing, you would be wise to have him get a good physical exam first, so that any acute physical illness can be treated before you start auditing him.  However, if the PC has an “untreatable” illness, there is no point in telling the doctor that you are going to heal him.  You are not talking about the same kind of healing, so you will just get into a big disagreement.  You can get into communication with the doctor on the basis of his expertise in his area.  Get him to write a report on his findings.  Don’t appear to challenge him in his field.

When you are in the field of psychosomatics, you are in the field of prolongation of illness.  Your argument with the M.D. takes an interesting turn, at this point.  There is nothing that he can do.  You can tell him, “This is a question of psychosomatic illness.  There is probably some mental condition holding the illness in place.”  He can agree with you, in oversimplified terms.  You can tell him that it is more complicated than that, and he will agree.  It is something that has exceeded his cycle of action, so he has to become the effect of it.

If you can do something about psychosomatic illness when the doctor can’t, he will be glad to send those patients to you, because those are the patients he can do nothing about, which makes him feel like a fraud and gives him loses.  These are the patients whose illnesses go on longer than they should.  You can tell the doctor a simplified version of what you will do, as one specialist to another.  Then you get your result, and the doctor will look on you with awe.

The M.D. knows that the “psychiatrist is a failure, because (among other things) he can’t handle -- never solved -- the problem of prolongation for the M.D.”  If scientology made its position completely clear to the medical doctor, namely, that we are not interested in trying to heal obvious physical injury and illness, our view would become much realer to the M.D., and we would be seen as doing him a service, in handling the “crocks”.  Just agree to the truth that a skull fracture, for example, is nothing that psychosomatic healing should be practiced on -- that there is a purview that belongs properly and exclusively to the M.D. and surgeon -- and he will stop fighting you instantly.

Psychosomatic healing actually has an old tradition, older than the M.D.’s.  This includes witch doctoring, “magic”, etc.  Naturally it is the oldest tradition.  It has truth behind it, because it is the tradition of the spirit.  This is just a small part of scientology, but it is where we belong in the field of healing. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1964
Remimeo	
Franchise
Sthil	
SCIENTOLOGY I to IV

 GOOD INDICATORS AT LOWER LEVELS

The following list of good indicators was compiled from my lecture tapes by John Galusha. An additional three are added at the end.

Lower Level Good Indicators.
1. 	Pc cheerful or getting more cheerful.
2. 	Pc cogniting.
3. 	Fundamental rightnesses of pcs asserting themselves.
4. 	Pc giving things to auditor briefly and accurately.
5. 	Pc finding things rapidly.
6. 	Meter reading properly.
7. 	What’s being done giving proper meter response.
8. 	What’s being found giving proper meter response.
9. 	Pc running rapidly and flattening by TA or cognitions.
10. 	Pc giving auditor information easily.
11. 	Needle cleanly swinging about.
12. 	Pc running easily and if pc encounters somatics they are discharging.
13. 	Tone Arm goes down when pc hits a cognition.
14. 	Further TA blowdown as pc continues to talk about something.
15. 	Expected meter behaviour and nothing unexpected in meter behaviour.
16. 	Pc gets warm and stays warm in auditing or gets hot and unheats while in auditing.
17. 	Pc has occasional somatics of brief duration.
18. 	Tone Arm operating in the range 2.25 to 3.5.
19. 	Good TA action on spotting things.
20. 	Meter reading well on what pc and auditor think is wrong.
21. 	Pc not much troubled with PTPs and they are easily handled when they occur.
22. 	Pc stays certain of the auditing solution.
23. 	Pc happy and satisfied with auditor regardless of what auditor is doing.
24. 	Pc not protesting auditor’s actions.
25. 	Pc looking better by reason of auditing.
26. 	Pc feeling more energetic.
27. 	Pc without pains, aches or illnesses developing during auditing. Does not mean pc shouldn’t have somatics. Means pc shouldn’t get sick.
28. 	Pc wanting more auditing.
29. 	Pc confident and getting more confident.
30. 	Pc’s Itsa free but only covers subject.
31. 	Auditor easily seeing how it was or is on pc’s case by reason of pc’s explanations.
32. 	Pc’s ability to Itsa and confront improving.
33. 	Pc’s bank getting straightened out.
34. 	Pc comfortable in the auditing environment.
35. 	Pc appearing for auditing on his own volition.
36. 	Pc on time for session and willing and ready to be audited but without anxiety about it.
37. 	Pc’s trouble in life progressively lessening.
38. 	Pc’s attention becoming freer and more under pc’s control.
39. 	Pc getting more interested in data and technology of Scientology.
40. 	Pc’s havingness in life and livingness improving.
41. 	Pc’s environment becoming more easily handled.

								L. RON HUBBARD

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

6407C30 SHSpec-32 “Psychosomatic” -- Its Meaning in scientology

Medical treatment lies in what they call “psychic trauma”.  Within 24 hours of LRH’s setting out a program of helping the medicos, they goofed with a Saint Hill student (Bill Webster-Johnson).  They gave him the wrong blood-type during a transfusion and thereby possibly cost him his life. That’s pure damn foolishness!  In the first place, they monkey around when they get outside their limited proper field.  This caused LRH to take a sharp look at possible cooperation and made him question it.  Legislatures pass laws about things that they know nothing about.  “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says you have to be sane to be a citizen, and yet ... if you are pronounced insane, you are no longer a citizen and have no civil rights whatsoever.”  The right to say who is insane is given to people with no training in the field of the mind, who think that the mind is the brain.  By law, they do not have to be trained in anything but medicine, anyway.  There is no bill or law that says that psychiatrists can practice in the field of the mind, only that one must be an M.D.  Psychiatrists do not have to be licensed, and the term, “psychiatrist” has no legal standing.

To train an animal, you wait for the animal to do something and then say the command word and reward the animal.  Association, according to Pavlov and Thompson, is a concatenation of [events], by which one reaches a conclusion. Freudian psychiatry is not currently practiced.  None of the current practitioners was trained by Freud, and the original system may have called for more intelligence on the part of the practitioner than seems to be used now.  Freud probably used savvy and word-association to cone down on the problem.  Free association is the lengthy procedure.  For contemporary Freudians, amassing “enough” data appears to be their system.

But by the time one amasses enough data one is simply confused.  You need a chance to apply the data.

Technology is dicey stuff.  The more vias it goes through, the more errors it becomes subject to.  LRH handles lots of tech queries from students, instructors, MSH, etc.

The right to practice depends, ideally, on the ability to do, not on some state legislator’s decisions.  Promoters and lobbyists determine what laws and appropriations shall be made anyway, in order to get more money for their department or industry or whatever.  That is why there are periodic attacks on scientology.  It is being used as an example of “How bad it all is, over there.”

If you hit someone, mentally or physically, with enough force, duress, or bad news, you can make him give you something:

Mass:  A physical blow

Significance:  Saying how bad it is.  E.g., “Is seepage troubling your loved ones?” This is a mortuary bad news come-on for expensive caskets.  Blackmail is based on the same principle.  So is taxation and the draft.  The medical doctor uses this technique in disease-fighting campaigns that scare people with how bad it is.  Instead of getting their income from curing people, they use the scare tactic as a large source of funds.

If you understand how this law operates, you can usually put together a good defense or counter-attack.  This scare tactic is also used by patients: “I’m so bad off, you’ve got to give me....” With the next bad news artist you run into, ask him boldfacedly, “What am I expected to give you?” You will stop him cold in his tracks.  This “completely discombobulates” him.  You apply the second half of the law that he is operating on (albeit unknowingly) before he is ready for it.  You complete the cycle unexpectedly.

You may not get a sensible answer to your question, but you will change what he is doing his attention.  He may not doing this consciously.  He may have you misidentified and be dramatizing something.  He surely doesn’t expect your response.
“If you can make people laugh when they’re crying and cry when they’re laughing, then you would know something about the human mind.”  This is an interesting point.  But “knowing the mind doesn’t mean manipulating the mind.”

The medical profession means something else by psychosomatic healing than what you mean by it.  They mean “the mind’s influence on the body”, but they consider the mind to be the brain.  So “psychosomatic” means the brain’s or the nervous system’s effect on the body.  This is like saying that the switchboard is the causative element of the phone company.  So “psychosomatic” has come to mean “the body’s effect on the body”.  Thus the subject of psychosomatic illness has disappeared as a meaningful subject.

The word, “psychosomatic” actually means “psyche -- soul, plus soma -- body”, so a proper definition of “psychosomatic” would be “a thetan’s influence on the body”.  That is our definition, but not the medicos’.  The first downgrade was to translate “psyche” as “mind”.  The thetan had lost his identity and had become identified with the masses and machinery of the mind. The second downgrade was to make “mind” mean “brain and nervous system”.  This makes “psychosomatic” mean about what “the influence of the switchboards and telephone lines on the government” would mean.  That is what the M.D.’s mean. Since the brain and nervous system are part of the body, you are just dealing with the body’s influence on the body.  Case has just fallen out of it.

A better term, then, might be “spiritual healing”, or the spirit’s influence on the body.  You can educate or process someone to recognition of the effect he as a being is having on his

You could ask him for times in his life when he was ill, following being upset.  He might comm lag a long time, but getting a few of these out of the way will improve someone’s case.

We have advanced beyond the tradition of psychosomatic healing because we recognize three stages of influence:  The thetan (psyche) influencing the mind (psycho), which then influences the body (soma).  We recognize that the mind is doing something to the body.  Some retained memory has held a pain or an experience in place, keeping the body ill or predisposing the body to illness or injury.  You wouldn’t have a somatic (body feeling) of feeling good, because it would be you that felt good.  Dianetics was at the level of mind over the body.  But even here, the mind was not totally causative.  We had to recognize that something was doing something that was not the mind.  We recognized that the thetan existed and could influence the mind to make it stop influencing the body for the worse, and that makes us different.  We have found the thing that the thetan can influence: the mind.  He may not be able to influence the body directly, but he can influence the mind which, in turn, is influencing the body.  This is more effective than earlier healing practices, because asking the thetan to influence the body directly is too great a gap for him to jump.

Scientology handles predisposition to illness, and we are the only ones who can, just as we are the only ones who can handle prolongation of illness.

6408C04 SHSpec-33 A Summary of Study

There has not been a technology of education or study.  There was a school technology, but it didn’t have much to do with education.  Education seldom has much to do with school.  Education, as opposed to schooling, takes into account the relative importance, i.e. the applicability, of the data being taught.  Schooling has no real thought of applicability.  For instance, there are people in art who think that knowing names and dates is knowing something about art, when they couldn’t tell you what a picture was painted with.

In education, mass and significance must be balanced.  Don’t get too much significance for the mass.  When you get into significance vs. mass, you get into action.  Action could be defined as significance versus mass of some kind.  The reason why one engages in action is that one has a purpose of achieving or avoiding something.  In education, when the significance is never added to the mass, you get a jammed curriculum.  There is no doingness.  A significance that has nothing to do with the mass that you are now confronting is a disrelated datum.  All it does is to throw you a curve.  School is expert at doing this.  You could have a school system that would teach, but that wouldn’t educate anyone or train anyone for anything, because it failed to add any mass or doingness to the significance.  The data in such a school system is all curiosa.  It is not of any use.  That is why you almost never turn an artist out of a university.  Universities separate significance from action, so that the student gets introverted, with no confront of the subject.  You can’t have education if you detach doingness from significance.  If you do this, you get a highly impractical person who never leaves school:  a professor.

For someone to teach who cannot do is a terrible mistake.  Instructors in scientology should be able to audit.  Any trouble an instructor has in teaching has at least a little to do with inability in the area.

A person merely writing reports of people who can do is too far removed from the mass to write a good textbook.

When you have thoroughly learned something, you can use your textbook knowledge to think, and you will get a better result than the pure textbook approach would give.  LRH also found that the pure darkroom training that he had had wasn’t enough in itself to make a good photographer.  There is ample evidence of this fact in the daily newspaper pictures, which are mostly by untrained photographers.  Photography has the common denominator of the public taste.  It is a new subject -- only a little over a century old.  It hasn’t had time to get snobbish.

When a subject is all mass and no significance, it also fails. Professionalism has to do with significance, doingness, and mass.  You need all three to get a final result.  Education would treat these three things equally.  This isn’t a new thought, but the photography course confirmed it for LRH.  Professionalism is sweated for.  Professionals work hard. Dilettantes don’t.

You don’t have to have done everything that has been done to be a pro. You don’t have to have made a human mind to fix one up, or to have built an E-meter to know how to operate one.  This would be an overstress on doingness.

The way to keep things in balance is to design the course such that if someone isn’t going to do something, you strip the significance out of it. Doingnesses become converted to significances if one isn’t going to perform them.  You should never thus convert doingnesses to only significances, i.e. never take something that is never more to be performed and describe it far beyond necessity.  You can work it in the other direction and convert a significance to a doingness, if you take something that has been done but isn’t currently being done and teach someone to do it, e.g. Bromoil prints. The doingness and mass of a subject that should be taught are the currently applicable doingnesses and masses of the subject.  The significances that should be taught are enough background so that the individual doesn’t get stuck in the doingness, so that the doingness has a framework, and the principles behind it are clear and understood.  This is a little more significance than you would expect.  That is why you show the student how the subject evolved, what other doingnesses there have been, and the principles behind the doingnesses.  Then he can think, as well as perform a mechanical act.  That is the difference between a pro and a practical man.  When a doingness changes, the guy who has grounding in the subject can understand why and evaluate it properly.  A professional, therefore, can advance, where a practical man without theoretical grounding would become antiquated or obsolete.

A [mere] theoretician could be well-taught, but he is seldom educated, since his doingness would be missing.  He might have some other doingness that would be useful.  E.g. he could be an art expert who knows nothing about art but whose doingness is the detection of the age of canvasses.  Or whatever.

Most of the protest of the young is that they are being schooled, not educated.  An instructor could think someone was doing simply because he was in motion.  But if the motion has nothing to do with what the student will be doing, it reacts like a significance, and the student will feel bored and stuck, as though he was up against something that he couldn’t move through.

Education should be the activity of relaying an idea or an action from one being to another in such a way as not to stultify or inhibit the use thereof.  It permits the recipient to think on and develop the subject and not to become antiquated on the subject.  The information is loose and flexible in his head, not fixed in such a way that it relates to only one thing.  The basic thing wrong with education has been that it never defined what it was trying to do.  It got confused with schooling.  Education got in trouble the second it started to do something that it didn’t define.

By starting with the thetan as the basis of our theory, we exceed the reach of other subjects.  We have to process someone to get him to understand, because the thetan is relatively incapable of understanding in a degraded state.  There appears to be a close relationship between mis-education and aberration.  You could get resurgences in many areas of a case just by getting someone to find and define misunderstood words from life. 

6408C06 SHSpec-34 Study -- Gradients and Nomenclature

Bulletins are now being written in a form that is easier to understand, since LRH started to study study.  Scores on exams have gone from 5% in the go’s to 60% in the 90’s, since this material started to be communicated.  The aim is to improve the ability of the student to learn by altering the methodology of teaching.  This is an unusual approach.  We are now handling the student’s subjective reaction to the subject by changing the method of teaching.  The usual way to change the student’s reaction to the subject was by punishment, the normal physical universe method.  The grade system is a punishment system.  On rare occasions, the participation of the student has been invited by some teachers.

Education is not normally very successful, although educators don’t often recognize or admit this fact.  In scientology, we have the unusual situation of being able to see the end product of our education in action.  This makes it easy to see how well the students learned the material.  In studying study, LRH avoided fields where the student’s ability to apply what he learned is readily observable.  We have instantaneous inspection of the results of our study.  This is quite rare.

Most fields of study expect the student to be very amateurish.  In the field of photography, you get results almost as rapidly as in studying auditing, which made it a good comparative field for studying.

Auditing is a complicated activity.  In teaching it, we apply the principle of gradient scales, which was discovered long since.  We have someone learn a fairly simple basic action very well.  Then we add a second action, etc.  Modern universities usually err by entering the gradient at too high a point and assuming that the students already know basics that they don’t, in fact.  Modern education is the art of teaching on an out-gradient.

Our basic gradient on education is to start by getting someone there. This is a step that elementary school teachers overlook and that works very well when used for five or ten minutes a day, brief a time though that is, at the start of the day.  For instance, you could run, “Look at that wall,” etc. The fact that a body is there doesn’t prove that the person is there.  Nobody is smart where he is not, so getting the person there raises I.Q.

You always have to start with an action that is simple enough so that the student can get it rather easily.  Otherwise, he will feel spinny and confused as he goes on.  You could discover whether this had happened with a person by checking on the E-meter for early difficulties in studying dianetics or scientology.  If you got TA and continued reads as the person discussed it, you would know that there was something there that bad never been resolved.

The difficulties that men have with their minds are those which have ridden forward with them into the present.  Those are the ones that must be handled.  You can always get one read on a difficulty or confusion that someone has had in the past, simply because it is pictured on the track as having been a difficulty.  But it won’t keep reading, if it hasn’t ridden forward in time.  As an auditor, you are only interested in the things that the person never resolved, which are active now.  Those things will read repetitively.  This applies to clearing up someone’s difficulty in studying, because the confusions that the person had which are now cleared up have no power to confuse him now.  ARC must have preceded all misemotion and bad reaction.  The confusion that sticks the student in PT is never his basic confusion.  If a student really can’t learn something, then there is a lower point on the gradient that the student skipped.  At that point, he had enough confusion to be overwhelmed.  That second point is the one that you will get on the meter.  You won’t get the earliest point.  This follows the pattern of the mind.  A person doesn’t have trouble from what he knows is wrong.  What the student is very confused about, which the instructor can’t seem to teach, is not the right point to try to clear up.  The way to handle this student is to go back and find the word in the earlier material that wasn’t understood. You can pinpoint within a few words the exact spot at which a student started to have trouble, then look earlier and find the skipped gradient.  If there is some word that a student doesn’t understand, with violence, you look before that.  You go back as far as you need to.

The physiological manifestations will be feeling headachy, spots in front of the eyes, walls getting closer, a spinny, weird feeling.  The skipped gradient can even be in an allied subject.  When a word is misunderstood, words right after it vanish.

Teaching is relaying data to a person that he can receive and understand, in such a way that he will be able to use the data.  That is the definition that was given the other day to fit in with this exact rationale that we are discussing now.  Instruction would consist of guiding a student along a known gradient, not dreaming up solutions to his confusions. Good instruction consists in backtracking to find the point where the student thought he understood, when he didn’t.  “Study is a concatenation of certainties, ... a string of confidences and competences.” So before you help a student out, let him get in trouble.  “Never trouble trouble ‘til trouble troubles you.”  That is the difficulty of group study.  Teachers have to make an average of trouble for the whole class.  Don’t ever help a student before be runs into trouble.

It is interesting that it was in 1947 that LRH started investigating the effect of a mis-learned word on life, following the data from Commander Thompson on word-associations.  LRH established that when he cleared up some words, what had been troubling a person ceased to trouble him, though he could well have new problems.

Another aspect of the misunderstood word phenomenon can be that the word or phrase used can be inadequate, leading to omitted data.  One can get hung up by being deprived of some information, e.g. by a typographical error.  So it could be omitted data as well as misunderstood words [that causes trouble for the student].  The fault could be in the text.  The common ingredient is that something is not understood. 

6408C11 SHSpec-35 Study: Evaluation of Information

Psychologists are working for advertisers in order to find out what makes people tick: motivational research.  But they are the wrong people to go to, since they don’t know what the real buttons are.  A scientologist could be much more successful at motivational research, degrading though the use of knowledge of the mind for such purposes would be.

In order to live calmly in the midst of confusion, a person must have the basic answers.  Then the confusion doesn’t bother him 90% of the time, and the other 10% of the time he can do something about it.  Knowledge is achieved by study.  The subject of words boobytraps a person’s efforts to find out about the world.  The individual generally assigns to the wrong part of the study material the reason why he can’t study it, because the right part is something that he isn’t confronting, and he feels he can’t confront it.  So he disperses and confronts something else.

Study could mean the same thing as inspection, i.e. observation to find out something about something.  A person can observe something directly, or he can get knowledge on a second-hand basis from the printed page.  The second system speeds up the amount that you can learn, since you don’t have to do all the basic leg-work.  Even when you have direct experience, it is best to have some fruits of others’ observations and experience from which to profit. Illiterate cultures don’t survive as well as literate ones.  Those who do not know, who do not understand, get overwhelmed and tossed out.

Between the two extremes of:

1.  No observation necessary because one knows everything (a dying civilization or individual).

2.  No observation possible (because the words aren’t known).  lies the middle ground of knowing the words and staying alert.  Never become complacent about what you know and you will survive nicely.  This applies especially to someone who knows more than those around him.  This danger, of stultifying because of thinking that there is no more need to observe, faces scientology.

The person who survives is the one who can observe, understand, and do. Second hand observation in particular has to be very well understood.  The understanding has to increase in proportion to the directness of the observation.  Understanding is a substitute for mass in studying something. There are two things to understand about second hand observation and understanding.  The understanding can be indirect because of:

1.  Time.

2.  Being relayed by someone else.  The difficulties of second-hand observation are innumerable, so part of our understanding must be evaluation of the reliability of the information that we are being given.  That is where the bulk of beings get fouled up.  Evaluating an information source is a matter of experience, among other things.  You must be able to go on past something you know you don’t understand, being prepared for any misunderstood phenomena and knowing the source of these phenomena.

What a person studies and the way in which he studies, should depend on what he wishes to do with the information.  Specialized words are used for specialized observations.  You can approach a subject at various levels.  You can think that you know more than you do, if you have had a superficial contact with the subject.  But how much do you want or need to know about the subject?  Do you want to be able to discuss it at parties, or to use it for something, and if the latter, for what do you want to use it?  For instance, art could be used as a discussion topic, as interior decoration, as investment, as something that one will teach others to appreciate, or as something that one will create oneself.
Study that winds up only in understanding with no activity is OK.  There is a lot of it around in society.  But don’t make a habit of it.  You can think that you know all about it, when you can’t do it.  That is not very pro-survival.  Neither is the consideration that the subject is too complicated for you to ever use it.  Doingness does require much more understanding than lookingness.  If you are studying for doingness, study on a gradient.  Give the student a series of doingnesses that he can do and have wins at.  Doingness increases understanding, as well as the other way around.

6408C13 SHSpec-36 Study and Education

Education is acquiring a knowingness in a subject and an ability to act in that area.  The whole subject of education has, as its end, the accomplishment of certain doingnesses.  Study that doesn’t have that intention is only directed towards acquaintance, dilletantism, or doodle-daddling.  That is not really education.  Education is to accomplish certain things with that subject.  If a person is educated in a subject, he can accomplish the results of that subject because he knows that subject.  This is why “education” in schools isn’t really education at all.

You can’t really separate education from some role, some professional doingness, as the end in view.  That is the modern quarrel with “education” in schools.  Much is spent to educate students, but they don’t get educated. People don’t get educated in arithmetic because it doesn’t have an end product.  It could have an end product, but the end product hasn’t been defined or described.  In universities, the student is expected to use higher mathematics to solve problems that could actually be solved with arithmetic, if arithmetic hadn’t been degraded by being thought of as nothing but groundwork for higher mathematics.

As the purpose of a subject deteriorates or is purported to deteriorate, the subject itself disappears.  If the individual learning the subject has no purpose for the subject, it will die away in him.  A live study is one that has use.  A dead study has no use.  You can cause a subject to die away, either by making its use die away or by omitting its purpose as part of the educational process. [I.e. not telling students what the subject is for.  This brings to mind the dissemination formula.  This is related to the fact that you need a purpose to study something.  Getting a person’s ruin and applying the formula gives him a purpose for looking at the subject of scientology.]

It is possible to become obsessive in the study of some subject that has no use.  In talking about scientology, people will think of it as a subject only when they see that it has a purpose that is real to them as an attainable purpose.

For an educational subject to continue to exist, it must have a purpose that can be seen to be an attainable action to the individual addressed, in his view.  The value of a subject depends upon the value of attaining its stated purpose.  A culture is held together only by education.  The achievement of an education is remunerated to the degree that:

1.  Its service is understood to be valuable.  This shows that some odd services are thought to be valuable, e.g.  undertaking, which has survived as a technical line for thousands of years.

2.  It is understood.  A continuing need for a subject will preserve the subject, but its technology must be relayed which it will be if it is needed.  One could destroy a subject by destroying its purpose or by destroying its technology, or by adding things to its technology that are unnecessary.  In educating a person in a certain subject, the longer it takes to get to the point of using the subject, the more opportunities there are to fail at it. This is is the reverse of the too-steep gradient.  [Cf. the analogy of the “runway”.  If it is too short, you can’t take off, but if it is too long, you are likely to damage the plane on the ruts and stones before you can take off.]

True knowledge gives correct emphasis.  Merely theoretical knowledge will give a wrong emphasis.  This can result in technology getting lost, as would happen if, for instance, you studied three weeks on how to make E-meter varnish, and other such matters.  Unrealities enter when you teach solutions to problems that don’t exist or when you fail to solve problems that do exist.  By experience, you learn where the problems are.  It is hard to teach a subject with which you have no immediate personal experience.  This is one reason why education gets a bad name, since most professors don’t know what they are talking about.  [Those that can, do; those that can’t, teach.]

All subjects wind up in a finite doingness.  If a subject doesn’t wind up in a finite doingness, a person cannot be educated in that subject.  Anything that winds up in a specific doingness can be educated.

Education in the absence of the mass with which the technology will be involved is hard on people.  It makes them feel squashed, bent, sort of spinny, bored, exasperated, sort of dead.  Pictures of the mass would help. You would expect the greatest incidence of suicide and illness where people were studying a subject whose mass was absent.  Too steep a gradient gives a different physiological reaction: a confusion and reelingness.  The bypassed definition gives a blank, washed-out, not-there feeling, followed by a nervous hysteria.  The eventual manifestation of this is a blow from the subject. 

To remedy the absence of mass, supply mass.  To remedy the too-steep gradient, find the last point that was well understood and find the misunderstood right there or just after.  To remedy the misunderstood word get it defined and used.

Manifestations of study problems:

Absent Mass

1.  Squashed feeling.
2.  Bent feeling.
3.  Feeling sort of spinny.
4.  Boredom.
5.  Flatness.
6.  Peeling sort of dead.
7.  Exasperation.
8.  Headaches.
9.  Stomach aches.
10.  Eyes hurting.
11.  Dizziness.

Too Steep a Gradient

1.  Confusion.
2.  Reelingness.

Bypassed Definition

1.  Blank, not-there, washed-out feeling.
2.  Followed by a nervous hysteria.
3.  Followed by a blow from the subject.  This is the final manifestation.

Gradients are more involved with doingness, though they do hang off in the subject of significance.  But it is the action that we are interested in.

The misunderstood word is the most important thing in establishing someone’s doingness.  The restoration of doingness depends only on getting the misunderstood word defined and understood, though to do well or with talent may vary from person to person.  A person, say, doesn’t know a word in psychology, so he can’t move over into scientology.  The misunderstood word opens the gate to education, so it is the most important aspect of study tech. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST AD14

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
SCIENTOLOGY TWO

PREPCHECK BUTTONS
(Cancels previous issues)

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.

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 OverRestimulated.

In order to avoid most GPM words, for all uses the 18 Prepcheck Buttons now are:

SUPPRESSED
CAREFUL OF
DIDN’T REVEAL
NOT-ISED
SUGGESTED
MISTAKE BEEN MADE
PROTESTED
ANXIOUS ABOUT
DECIDED
WITHDRAWN FROM
REACHED
IGNORED
STATED
HELPED
ALTERED
REVEALED
ASSERTED
AGREED (WITH)

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 Not-Ised 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 not be used, as they include GPM words which would make the pc uncomfortable in some cases if over-run.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST AD 14
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students	       
MODEL SESSION
LEVELS III TO VI
(Cancels previous issues)

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 “Put your hands in your lap.” “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 not done?’ “ (Another process that could be used is: “What have you said?”, “What have you not said?” 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 didn’t reveal?”

	“	has anything been not-ised?”

	“	has anything been suggested?”

	“	has any mistake been made?”

	“	has anything been protested?”

	“	is there anything you have been anxious about?”

	“	has anything been decided?”

In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Didn’t 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 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?” “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, Didn’t Reveal, Protest, Decide, Overts, Asserts, using prefix “In this session_____?”

GOALS & GAINS:

11. 	“Have you made any of these goals for this session?” “Thank you for making these goals for this session” or “Thank you for making some of these goals for this session. I’m sorry you didn’t make all of them” or “I’m sorry you didn’t make these goals for this session.”

	“Have you made any gains in this session that you would care to mention?” “Thank you for making these gains for this session,” or “I’m sorry you didn’t make any gains for this session.”

HAVINGNESS:

12. 	(After adjusting the meter) “Put your hands in your lap.” “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 Not-Ised”.

ARC Break handling is in accordance with HCO Bulletin of Mar. 14, 1963. Don’t continue a session until you find out why the ARC Break.

LRH:jw.bh		                  				L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 AUGUST AD14
Remimeo
Sthil Students

SCIENTOLOGY I TO IV

CLAY TABLE WORK IN TRAINING AND PROCESSING

Covered in this HCO Bulletin are:

1. 	The Construction of Clay Tables.
2. 	Clay Table use in Training.
3. 	Clay Table Definition Training.
4. 	Clay Table Use in the HGC.
5. 	Clay Table HEALING.
6. 	Clay Table IQ Processing.

CLAY TABLE WORK IN TRAINING

THE ONLY REASON ANY STUDENT IS SLOW OR BLOWS LIES IN FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE WORDS USED IN HIS OR HER TRAINING.

You will find that students at any level in any course will benefit greatly from Clay Table work on definitions.

The importance of this will become apparent as you study our new educational technology, now mainly to be found on the tapes of the few weeks before this date.

A Clay Table is any platform on which a student, standing or sitting, can work comfortably. In an Academy it may be 3 feet by 3 feet or 5 feet by 3 feet or any larger size. Smaller sizes are not useful. In the HGC it is about 21/2 feet by 4 feet.

The surface must be smooth. A table built of rough timber will serve but the top surface where the work is done should be oilcloth or linoleum. Otherwise the clay sticks to it and it cannot be cleaned and will soon lead to an inability to see clearly what is being done because it is stained with clay leavings.

In the Academy castors (wheels) can be put on the legs of both the clay table and the clay container where they will be moved a lot.

Several different colours of clay should be procured. The best source is a school supply house where educational supplies are sold. Artists’ clay is not as good as the school type. (Ask for kindergarten clay.)

A receptacle, also of wood or metal and having a separate stand of its own of any type is also valuable. It should have subdivisions in it for the different coloured clays.

The amount of each colour is not important so long as there is at least a pound or two of each colour in a small class or an auditing room.

In the Academy colours are only used to make a student see the difference between one object and another and have no other significance as the objects in the mind are not uniformly coloured. While “ridges” are black, they can become white. Engrams may be a number of colours all in one engram, just as Technicolor is a coloured motion picture. However, some persons see engrams only in black and white. So the colour in the Academy is for instruction only, assisting to tell the difference between one object or another. (In the HGC it may be very significant to the pc, as covered later.)

The instructor works with the table before classes at times, so it is of benefit to have a table so arranged that it will tilt toward the class at about a 30° angle with the floor. This can be done as easily as putting the back legs of the table on temporary wooden blocks or as complicatedly as using a large engineer’s drawing table which tilts its whole top. If a table is to tilt, the lower edge during the tilt must have a one or two inch guard board to keep the covering or the clay from falling to the floor if it slips. It doesn’t slip, usually, on a linoleum table surface but sometimes a bit is dropped and an instructor can more gracefully recover it if it hasn’t rolled off on the floor. A loose linoleum top is also prevented from sliding off by a guard board.

Any part of the mind can be represented by a piece of clay or a white card. The mass parts are done by clay, the significance or thought parts by label.

A piece of clay and a label are usually both used for any part of the mind. A thin-edged ring of clay with a large hole in it is usually used to signify a pure significance .

The labels used by Instructors (but not by students) are done on white cards, inked with a heavy black inking means such as a china marking pencil or a “GemMarker” where a metal cylinder holds ink and the point is made of felt. The inked label is mounted on a small stick two to four inches long of the kind used by nurses for swabs or metal ones used to hold meat together. Scotch tape or Sellotape will bind a label to a stick.

Everything is labelled that is made on the clay table, no matter how crude the label is. Students usually do labels with scraps of paper written on with a ball-point. An Instructor would use the fancier kind so that these would easily be visible to others.

The main clay table and its clay container is set up in the lecture room of a course in such a way so that it can be moved up in front of a class, or over in the corner out of the way, or to an area in the room where two or three students can gather around it or work. More than one clay table must be made for large classes but the additional tables need not tilt. In the HGC a clay table is narrower and longer and one is placed in each auditing room. Any HGC clay table can be used to train staff auditors. The clay tables in auditing rooms are used for processing. In the HGC there is not just one table for everyone’s use. There is one in each auditing room.

USE ON COURSES

Any part of the mind or any term in Scientology can be demonstrated on a Clay Table.

This is an important point to grasp. The use of the table is not just for a few terms. It can be used for all definitions.

The ingenuity of the instructor or the student and their understanding of the terms being demonstrated are the only limits on a Clay Table.

Simplicity is the keynote. Nothing is too insignificant or unimportant to demonstrate on a clay table. The first mistake is to believe that only R6, for which the lower grade student is not ready, can be demonstrated on a clay table.

Anything can be so demonstrated if you work at it. And just by working on how to demonstrate it or make it into clay and labels brings about renewed understanding.
In the phrase “how do I represent it in clay” is contained the secret of the teaching. If one can represent it in clay one understands it. If one can’t, one really doesn’t understand what it is. So clay and labels work only if the term or things are truly understood. And working them out in clay brings about an understanding of them.

Therefore one can predict that the clay table will be most used in a practice or organization which understands the most and will be least used in an organization that understands the least (and is least successful).

Let us look over the level of simplicity of the terms to be used in a course of instruction.

Let us take BODY. All right, make a few lumps and call it a body and put a sign on it “BODY”.

Now that doesn’t seem to be much to do. But it is a lot to do to forward understanding.
Let us make a yellow ring of clay beside the body or on it or in it and label it “A Thetan”.

We can thereupon see the relationship between the two most used terms in Scientology, “Body” and “Thetan”. And cognitions will result. The student’s attention is brought right to the room and the subject.

Getting the student to do this by himself, even when he’s seen it done by the Instructor, produces a new result. Getting the student to do it 25 times with his own hands almost exteriorizes him. Getting the student to contrive how it can be done better in clay or how many ways it can be done in clay drives home the whole idea of the location of the thetan in the body.

ART is no object in clay table work. The forms are crude.

Take a large lump of clay of any colour, and cover up both “thetan” and “body” with it and you have MIND.

Take every part of the mind and make it in clay by making a thetan, making a body and making one or more parts of the mind (Machine, facsimile, ridge, engram, lock, what have you—all Scientology terms) and get the student to explain what it is and we begin to clarify what we’re about.

Get a student to make a Present Time Problem. Make him put in all its parts represented in clay (boss, mother, self) and have each one done with a body, a thetan and a mind and some rather remarkable insights begin to occur.

The quantity of things that can be made has no limit.

The principal thing is to GET EVERY SCIENTOLOGY TERM MADE IN CLAY AND LABELS by the individual student.

You will see a new era dawn in training. You will see Academy blows vanish and time on course cut to one fifth in many instances. These are desirable attainments in any course so Clay Table work is serious Academy business.

Ingenuity and understanding are the only limits on the use of the clay table and the attainment of excellent results with it.

CLAY TABLE WORK IN PROCESSING

The Clay Table presents us with a new series of processes.

The preclear is made to make in clay and labels whatever he or she is currently worried about or hasn’t understood in life.

Scientology terms such as the Present Time Problem can also be graphed but this is a specialized (if very beneficial) use.

But the essence of CLAY TABLE PROCESSING is to get the pc to work it out.

In training you mostly tell the student.

In auditing the pc tells the auditor.

This is still true in clay table processing.

CLAY TABLE HEALING

The preclear shows the auditor the objects and significances of his difficulty.

Example: Pc has a continual pain in the right leg. A perfectly ordinary clay table and clay container as above are used but the table is narrower and longer than a training clay table. The auditor seats the pc on one side of the table and the auditor sits on the other side. There is no meter between them. The auditor report is kept on a side table or the auditing table nearby not on the clay table. The container is handy to the pc and contains several colours of clay. The pc under the auditor’s direction but with no coaching as to how then makes the leg of any colour the pc chooses and a label “my right leg” and puts it on the clay leg. This done, the auditor asks the pc to say what should go near the leg. The pc then makes it crudely and rapidly in clay (again of any colour the pc chooses) and makes a label for it and puts it on the new object. The auditor wants to know what else should be near the leg. The pc says what and makes it in clay and labels it. Usually the pc chooses colours which are significant to him or her but which in fact need have no significance to the auditor.

Under the auditor’s brief questioning or voluntarily the pc tells the auditor all about each and every object he or she makes as it is made and labelled.

The full auditing comm cycle is observed but the auditor acknowledges more often than he or she commands.

The representation in mass and label form and the pc’s explanation of each mass and label as made constitute the valuable actions. The pc can put aside or re-use the clay of objects already made, but not the leg, which must remain.

If this is done well, and completely, the pc’s right leg will alter in condition.

You could assign several words to this activity to explain it. You could call it “symbolism” or “healing by projection of one’s troubles into mass”. You could call it “remedy by duplication”. But you really don’t have to explain it with a new term, because it works. This type of healing is very old. In fact it is the first recorded effective healing recorded in the dawn of man. But when we add to it what we really know of the mind, when we add to it the auditing comm cycle, when we use it with the pc telling the auditor, not the practitioner telling the pc, we move into zones of healing never dreamed of before.

This is in fact one of the new healing processes I have been promising levels I to IV. Its name is CLAY TABLE HEALING.

The pc’s havingness stays up while the significance comes off, which is a chief value.

INTELLIGENCE

IQ (intelligence quotient or the relative brightness of the individual) can be rocketed out of sight with HGC use of a clay table.

CLAY TABLE IQ PROCESSING

This is another process than Clay Table Healing. Don’t mix them.

This is done with the following steps:

1. 	Find out where the pc is trying to get brighter. It won’t do any good to try to make the pc brighter in fields or zones of knowledge where the pc doesn’t know he or she is stupid. So it is of great interest to find out where the pc is trying to become smarter and then using only that subject. If you as the auditor select the zone, it has been inferred that the pc is stupid in the area the auditor chooses and usually you get an ARC Break even if it doesn’t show in the session. So choose a zone of knowledge where the pc is striving to become more informed and the process works.

2. 	Trace back (with no meter) what word or term the pc failed to grasp in the subject chosen in 1. above. Trace one word, early in that training that the pc didn’t understand. (Never ask for the first word—merely an early one.)

3. 	Get the pc to make up the mass represented by the word in clay and any related masses. Get them all labelled and explained.

4. 	Repeat 2 and 3, (but not Step 1 until Step 1 is flat).

The process for any one subject can be considered flat when the pc is alert and interested in the subject of 1. It may take several sessions to flatten Step 1.
Once one subject has been straightened up and pc is bright about it we get Step 5 which consists of doing 1, 2 and 3 again, rather than just 2 and 3. But flatten Step I before finding a new subject or the pc will be just as confused as ever.

Clay Table IQ Processing is a clay table version of one of the new educational processes. If the clay table version is used don’t use the other Itsa or Meter versions. If the other Itsa or Meter versions are used, don’t use the clay table version. This is called, for purposes of reference, Clay Table IQ Processing. That is different than Clay Table Definition Training. And it is different than Meter Definition Processing. And different also from Coffee Shop Definition Processing. All these are different activities and the others named will be issued in due course. Suffice at this time to cover Clay Table Definition Processing. It is fantastic in producing results and in raising IQ.

In all clay table processing the pc handles the mass. The auditor does not suggest subjects or colours or forms. The auditor just finds out what should be made and tells the pc to do it in clay and labels. And keeps calling for related objects to be done in clay (“Do it in clay,” is the phrase. Avoid using “Make it,” because it’s a GPM word.)

A good clay table auditor takes it very easy, is very interested, acknowledges when it is expected, is very sure to understand what it is and why, and lets the pc do the work.

It is particularly important that the auditor grasp what the clay objects are and what the label means. An auditor tends to blow or become critical of the pc when the auditor glosses over his own understanding of what the pc is making and why. So when the auditor understands perfectly he or she simply acknowledges and when the auditor doesn’t understand completely, he or she asks and asks until he or she does understand. The auditor never asks a question “so the pc understands” when the auditor already does, as this makes a false ARC in the session.

HANDLING CLAY

Clay is messy. Until we find or unless we find a totally non-oily clay, precautions must be taken to keep students and particularly pcs clean, and if not clean, cleaned up afterwards.

Clay can get on E-Meter cans and insulate them from the hands. Clay can get on clothes and papers and walls and doors in a most alarming way.

Therefore, students and pcs using it can provide smocks for themselves and the instructor and auditor can provide liberal quantities of cheap cleaning tissue and solvent.

Several cheap solvents work. The least odorous and easiest handled are best. Odorous solvents should be guarded against as Academies, HGCs and private practice rooms will soon begin to smell like cleaning shops or mortuaries. This can become serious in restimulating pcs. So use odourless solvents.

And provide baskets for used cleaning tissues. And empty them.

The clinging quality of clay and the odour of bad solvents could put an end to the great value of Clay Table work. So safeguard against this.

Good hunting.
                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 AUGUST AD14
Remimeo
Sthil Students
SCIENTOLOGY III TO IV

(This HCO Bulletin is preceded by HCO Bulletin of
August 17, AD14. The process covered in the present
bulletin CLAY TABLE CLEARING was called
“Clay Table IQ Processing” in the earlier HCO Bulletin.)

CLAY TABLE WORK
COVERING CLAY TABLE CLEARING IN DETAIL

NOTE: CLAY TABLE CLEARING IS A RECOMMENDED HGC PROCESS AT LEVELS III & IV.

One of the most compelling urges below Level VI is the desire to achieve an incomplete purpose.

This will be found to be a remarkable dissemination factor.

Below Level VI one is striving to complete his or her goals. At Level VI, GPMs are run out. But before that can be achieved, one is thrust into the GPMs by the effort to accomplish.

Further, one does have wishes-to-do of his or her own having nothing to do with GPMs but only being blocked by them.

Usually someone wanted to attain an improvement when he or she came into Scientology. This wished-for improvement, until achieved, remains as a hidden standard (by which one judges whether or not he has improved). If the wish is attained, then one “knows Scientology works”. If the wish is not attained, then one isn’t sure Scientology works.

Wishes fall into two broad classes.

I. 	Mental achievement.

II. 	Physical achievements (including relief from illness).

The Clay Table Process most likely to give the preclear his wish to accomplish some purpose is CLAY TABLE CLEARING.

This is one of four Clay Table activities, the other three being Clay Table Definitions, Clay Table Healing, and Clay Table Track Analysis, the last being a training activity for Class VI.

One must differentiate amongst these four activities as they are not the same things.

Clay Table Definitions are done only in training and are not auditing. Clay Table Track Analysis is done in training for Level VI and again is not auditing.

The two Clay Table auditing activities are

I. 	Clay Table Clearing, used to achieve the pc’s rehabilitation and raised IQ in various fields, and

II. 	Clay Table Healing, used to get rid of physical discomfort of psychosomatic origin.

The above pair are the two HGC uses of Clay Table as of this writing. One does not use Clay Table Definitions or Clay Table Track Analysis in auditing sessions.

CLAY TABLE CLEARING

As one Scientology remedy for increased IQ and destimulation, Clay Table Clearing is audited by an auditor in a session. A meter may or may not be used depending on the training level of the auditor. But regardless of level, no metering is done during actual work on the Clay Table.

Where the auditing space is limited, the equipment used may be as meagre as a biscuit can full of clay and a two-foot square piece of linoleum to lay on the auditing table, the meter and auditor’s report being taken off the table, and the auditor’s report written on a clipboard in his or her lap during the auditing session. To end the session on the meter the linoleum is simply set aside and the meter put back on the table. More elaborate arrangements can be used as time and finance permit. But so long as one takes precautions not to get clay all over everything and everybody, the two-foot square lino scrap will suffice.

The entire effort by the auditor in a session of Clay Table Clearing is to help the pc regain confidence in being able to achieve things by removing the misunderstandings which have prevented that achievement.

To process only Scientology terms and call it Clay Table Clearing would be a gross error. The pc’s upsets with the mind seldom began with Scientology. If the pc, in answering the auditor’s questions, gets into Scientology terms, that is perfectly all right. But to sit down and concentrate on Scientology terms while calling it Clay Table Clearing would be an error for these two reasons:

1. 	Scientology terms are a training activity called Clay Table Definitions and

2. 	The pc did not become aberrated only after he or she got into Scientology.

Early on in an intensive one gets into Scientology terms now and then as these may be locks on an earlier misunderstanding with a similar subject.

Here is an example of this:

A psychologist has a terrible time understanding Dianetics and Scientology. In being run on Clay Table Clearing, the psychologist gives as his chief desire in life, gaining an ability to understand people. The first few terms chosen for Clay Table work may well be Scientology terms. But the auditor steers the pc back a bit, and lo! it was psychology the psychologist didn’t understand. And the Clay Table work would then be concentrated on psychology terms or childhood misunderstandings about people until the pc felt he had regained the ability to understand people—or, as such a pc would look at it, had begun to understand them. Now, with the first desire chosen (to understand people) flat, the auditor would search for a new zone where the pc wished to become able.

So you see, the auditor is handling the chief urges of the pc in Clay Table Clearing. The auditor is not trying to teach the pc a thing.

We have for long spoken of:

(a) 	“Ability regained”
(b) 	“Make the able more able”
(c) 	“Help the pc achieve his goals in life”.

These, and other aims in processing, are strictly processing aims, they are not training activites.

The action is de-stimulation of those things which bar the pc’s progress in life.

By handling broadly the pc’s bafflement about life we:

1. 	Unleash his theta by de-stimulating confusions, and

2. 	We eventually clear the pc.

We are directly removing the “Held Down Fives” (see Dianetics, Evolution of a Science) and clearing the pc’s ability to think, see and understand.

We do not remain long on Scientology terms if we get into them because of the evidence that the pc was not clear before he came into Scientology.

Further it is up to the pc to choose the zone to be explored. Just as you’d be in trouble setting goals for the pc, so you would be in trouble telling the pc what he wanted to do in life. He’s had too much of that from others to also get it from his auditor.

In using Clay Table Clearing we do not go into physical ills. These are handled faster by other processes. If these physical ills were the reason the pc wants to be processed then

1. 	You should have the pc given a competent physical examination as there may be some simple remedy for his condition or some condition present that needs physical treatment, and

2. 	If you process the pc and want to do Clay Table work, then you should be running Clay Table Healing, not Clay Table Clearing.

If you start to run a pc on Clay Table Clearing, and discover the pc is being audited only to be cured of something, not to be mentally improved, you carry on to an early point where you can gracefully shift over and end off Clay Table Clearing and begin Clay Table Healing. (How to do Clay Table Healing will be covered more fully in a later bulletin.)

THE STEPS OF CLAY TABLE CLEARING

STEP ONE: Find a subject or activity where the pc has desired to improve himself. This could be anything from athletics to “not to be frightened of goats”. In essence this is a stated goal. The pc’s auditor’s reports, if he or she has been audited before, will be found to abound with these. Further examination will discover that one is repeated very often. One may take up these earlier session “life and livingness goals” if the pc still wants to and does not have one on hand in which he or she is more interested. The current interest of the pc is the safest point with which to start. One establishes this by simple discussion of what the pc wants to do in life. This step is as brief as “What are you trying to do in life?” One finds something the pc wants to achieve or do, whether it is happy or unhappy, beneficial or suicidal, and one uses this. Do not linger on Step One once this is done. Do not challenge or question it. The auditor’s job here is to assist the pc to attain his goal and if it’s “to commit suicide”, that’s what the auditor uses. The auditor uses any sincere life and livingness goal the pc expresses as what he wants to do. Only one word of warning--do not accept a sarcastic or critical goal. That means the pc has an ARC Break, a PTP, overts or withholds or is being audited under duress and the auditor must handle the attitude with the usual means. But it is also an error to challenge a purpose the pc really has just because it sounds crazy or anti-social.

STEP TWO: Having established the purpose, the auditor now establishes something about it the pc didn’t understand. This will be some generalized idea usually. It will seldom be a word. It will be some idea expressed in several words or gestures. However it is expressed by the pc, the auditor accepts this as what the pc has not understood about 1 above. It may take a while to sort out this concept or idea but when it is sorted out, that’s it. Example: The pc has understood an afterlife in hell as a punishment for committing suicide. The question asked to get the pc to dredge up this idea would be something like, “What about suicide haven’t you grasped?” assuming the pc’s desire was to commit suicide. It’s always “What about      (the purpose expressed in 1 above) haven’t you        (grasped, dug, been clear about, etc)?” or even “What was there in        (purpose expressed in 1 above) that baffled you?” When the pc has one go on to 3. It is a mistake to get the pc to try to clarify it any further than his first statement of what it is, as that isn’t accepting the pc’s answer and you must always accept a pc’s answer so long as it is an answer according to the pc. One gets the point of bafflement stated any old way by the pc and goes on to Step Three. It is a good idea to write the idea or concept the pc didn’t understand on your work sheet.

STEP THREE: Get pc to reduce that idea to a single term. This may be one word or a composite word. This step may involve a lot of groping or discussion. It may go on for quite a while. The purpose of the auditor here is just the auditing question, gently but firmly and even insistently put, “Put that concept about (the idea found in 2) into one word.” “Express that idea you had in a single term.” Coax, bully, insist, plead, but finally get it done. It is this step that tests the auditor’s comm cycle ability. For if the auditor has no control over the session, the pc will shift the idea in Step Two or try to discuss the whole subject of Step One. The pc will squirm, may try to beg off, may declare it’s impossible. But the auditor recognizes this action of the pc as charge blowing off and presses on with the command, “Express the idea        (can be read off work sheet) in one word.” Eventually the pc will deliver up one word. And that’s one of the words in the original subject (as given in Step One) that the pc never understood and some of the reason why the pc has stayed confused about the subject (as given in Step One), with consequent aberration. You may not believe it at times while doing Step Three that the pc can do it. You may even be prone to agree it’s impossible to do so. But if you do, you’ll lose the session and may lose the pc. You must get the idea in Step Two expressed as a word in Step Three. And the pc must eventually be satisfied that the word he now gives does express the idea given in Step Two. The auditor must make sure of that. The question may be, “Are you satisfied that the word (give word pc has come up with) does express the idea (read the idea of Step Two off the work sheet)?” You’ll easily see if the pc thinks it does or doesn’t. Relief attends his realizing it does express the idea in Step Two. Vague confusion attends his feeling that the word he has given does not express the idea in Step Two. As this whole step borders on challenging a pc’s answer, care must be taken not to really ARC Break the pc. He or she can be driven very close to the brink of an ARC Break and very possibly may be by the insistence on an answer. But the by-passed charge is the lost word and as soon as it comes up and is given to the auditor the pc becomes all smiles. If a session ARC Break occurs, use the List One ARC Break Assessment List or, if it’s not a Grade III session, have a Class III auditor do the ARC Break Assessment. (You can see by this why Clay Table Clearing is really for HGCs or professionals.) The only major error the auditor can make in Step Three is to fail to get the pc to do the step and give a word for there is where the charge is on the word that represents the idea of Step Two. Sometimes Step Three is very easy. Often not. The greatest danger lies in an auditor going wishy-washy and letting the pc change the idea of Step Two, or just letting the session collapse into endless Itsa. In Step Three, as in Step Two, the auditor is there to get a job done and does it. Having gotten the word that represents the idea given in Step Two, the auditor goes on to Step Four. CAUTION: DON’T LET PC CHOOSE A WORD THAT SOLVES  STEP TWO.

STEP FOUR. This is the true Clay Table Step. And one might say “this is where the fun begins”. This is usually the longest step by far. The auditing command is, “Represent the word      (as given in Step Three) in clay.” The auditor’s purpose in Step Four is to (a) acknowledge the pc’s ideas and comments and protests, (b) understand (by questions where the auditor doesn’t really understand) what the pc is trying to do and (c), and chiefly (c), get the pc to represent the word’s meaning in clay and (d) make sure the pc is completely satisfied he or she has represented the meaning of the word in clay. The command “Represent      (the word) in clay” may have to be repeated many, many times. If the command is executed the auditor must ask gently, “Are you satisfied you have done it?” The pc may do it over and over, or protest how it can’t be done and all that, but the auditor must get the pc to do it. The auditor may never suggest how it can be done, even when it is obvious. Truth is, it’s always obvious how to do it to the auditor, but the auditor isn’t aberrated on that point and the pc is. So the pc struggles until he or she really does represent the word in clay in a way that brings the dawn of comprehension, a lovely thing to see. Any word can be represented in clay. The auditor must realize that. Words that are confusing to the pc are harder for the pc to represent in clay. Again, the major mistake is to fail to get the pc to do it. Another gigantic error is to agree it can’t be done. And yet another error is for the auditor to fail to understand himself what the pc has done. If the auditor can’t understand it, the pc can’t either. Never be polite about not understanding what the pc means. Pcs ARC Break harder on a faked understanding than on repeated auditor efforts to understand. Pcs will explain for long periods when the auditor is still trying to grasp it. Pcs blow up when auditors fake a comprehension they have not obtained from what the pc said or did. To the auditor the clay representation and the pc’s explanation of it must be seen to easily represent the word found in Step Three. An added command is, “How does that represent the word?” This has nothing to do with art. It has to do only with good sense. There may be one or several clay forms that represent the word. What the pc does with it or some action with it may also be part of the representation of the word. When the auditor is sure the pc has represented the word of Step Three in clay and is sure the pc is sure, the auditor leaves this step.

STEP FIVE. Still keeping the subject found in Step One the auditor goes to Step Two and finds a new confused idea the pc has about the subject of Step One.

The subject of Step One is left only when the pc is very satisfied he has either regained his ability or confidence or has no concern about it. This may take many sessions.

Then one gets the pc to choose a new subject and proceeds with that, using the exact steps above with no shortcuts or failures to get the pc to do what he is supposed to do in each step. DON’T LEAVE A SUBJECT CHOSEN IN STEP ONE UNFLAT BY FAILING TO CLEAR THE PC ON THAT SUBJECT STEP BY STEP OVER AND OVER.

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

It may be supposed that CLAY TABLE CLEARING is the only process needed to clear a pc. This is untrue. Pcs have overts and withholds. They get PTPs and have had ARC Breaks with Life. They are sometimes too hard to control and need CCHs. And sometimes they are so bad off they “have no faults of any kind” and say so while sitting right there in a body.

But for the pc who can be audited on it, Clay Table Clearing is strawberries and cream, a soft berth, spring flowers and exit from the nightmare into life.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw jh 
Copyright © 1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

SESSION MUST-NOTS

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

NEVER tell a pc what his present time problem is.

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

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

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

II

NEVER set a goal for a pc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PERMITTED AUDITOR STATEMENTS

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6409C01 SHSpec-37 The PE Course

Here is some data from the field of study that relates to the PE course: New people hear incomprehensible words and don’t return.  That’s it.  That is the reason why you have fifteen people on Monday who dwindle to two people on Friday.  What has been discovered here is the act that exists prior to the overt and which illumines the overt-motivator and O/W sequences.  “Before there is an overt, there is a non-comprehend.”  So the overt-motivator sequence goes:

1. A misunderstood word.

2. A non-comprehend.

3. A belief that it is OK to commit an overt.

4. The commission of the overt.

5. The withhold of the overt.

6. A blow -- an attack or a withdrawal.  This can be big or small.  

[See also HCOB 8Sep64 “Levels II to IV: Overts -- What Lies Behind Them?”]

A critical thought is a justifier, a lessener of the overt, and therefore a symptom of an overt.  If you ask the PC for an overt and he gives a critical thought, of course you don’t leave it there.  You ask for the done.  Having gotten that, you could ask for the non-comprehend, and, behind that, for the misunderstood word.  Get the nattery student to find (on his own, before the next course-time) all of his misunderstoods in previous courses or studies and get them cleaned up.

Someone who can’t do anything about anything is reasonable about it all. This is a disease that a civilized person gets into.  “Being reasonable” doesn’t solve anything.  You “can’t do anything about it”, so you get reasonable about it.  Being reasonable is what someone does who can’t make his goals anymore.  If you really find out what the score is, you don’t have to be reasonable.  You can do something about it.  If a guy is having trouble understanding and is nattering about scientology before he has had time to find anything to natter about, there is a word or words in a prior related subject that was misunderstood.  Someone who has misunderstood words in a field that is allied to scientology, will be unable to learn scientology.  This is why someone who is a psychologist has trouble learning scientology.  He could do some clay table processing to handle it.  Or you could assign him a self-audit, looking up the words in psychology that he didn’t understand. This takes care of the natterer in the PE course, as a very precise action.

If you get someone in the PE course who is trying to get it but can’t, ask him for the word that you have used that he didn’t understand.  If the guy is simply trying and failing to grasp a word, he just has an in-context misunderstood word.  Find it, and he will brighten up.

Then there is the perfect PE student who sits and nods but hasn’t a clue.  This is handled by having people give written examples of the point that you have made, taken from real life.  This permits a return flow and lets you spot the fellow who is utterly glib and can’t apply, the fellow who hasn’t connected.  Get him to give you a list of words that he hasn’t understood since starting the course.  Take up those words and clean them up.  Probably some other people on the course haven’t got them either.

Suppose that you were offered a course, to teach you all about automobiles, and you had never seen one, but you had sort of vaguely heard about them.  You had heard that they travel over the ground at tremendous speeds.  This sow ded rather neat and intriguing, so you decided to take the course.  Then, suppose you got hit with three nights in a row of how neat cars are and how fast you can go in them and how intriguing they are, and you never got word one about what an automobile is, what makes it work, or what its parts are?  So when you teach scientology, teach it.

An overt against scientology is a justification for not having understood some word or concept in scientology.  Keep it simple and keep it defined.  As much as possible, keep it familiar.  People like the familiar.

People don’t like things that are totally new.  The public likes the old, with maybe a little bit of improvement, not new subjects.  So you had better represent scientology as what it is, which is the only conservative study in the field of the mind.  It follows the traditional patterns of philosophy, religion, and the mind.  Your own interest in it may have come from your recognition, in it, of the philosophy of Greece and Rome, and of faculty psychology.  

People justify not having understood a subject, so they commit the overt.  That shows that the subject is no good.  Present-day psychologists think of a man as a machine.  Psychology has a stable datum:  “Perception depends on association and sensation.”  According to the psychologist, there is no perception in the absence of sensation and association.  That is, a machine, in the absence of someone tickling its gears and certain things making other things happen, is incapable of noticing anything that is happening.  This notion puts conditions upon being able to perceive anything, and it is not true.  It would be true of a machine with nobody in charge, but it is not true of a being.  A being does not require sensation with association in order to perceive.  Only if a person were a piece of meat would this be true.  “Before I can look at a field of hay, I’d have to have received a sensation from [it] and [to] have associated it with my childhood.”  A robot would have to do that.  It would have to have associative memory, etc. Psychologists believe that Man is a robot.

When you say that “perception is engaged upon by the being himself as a means of communication with the universe around him and other beings,” you would have been welcomed by the sixteenth century faculty psychologists, but you are damned by the moderns.  You have introduced volition: volitional and non-volitional acts.  “You have set up the individual as seeing what he wants to see and not seeing what he doesn’t want to see.  You have set up the whole mechanism of power of choice, and you have set up the dignity of the individual.  And that they want nothing to do with, because they, ... in not understanding Man, have gone the route of the overt. [See earlier part of this tape.]”

“That’s why psychiatry cuts out brains.  They’ve got to make nothing out of Man, because they haven’t understood him.”  And the misunderstood word that it goes back to is “psychology”.  Every psychiatrist is in the frame of mind of a con man.  They are ARC broken with their own subject.  They know it doesn’t work.  This is where their contempt for Man comes from.  They dominate thought in universities.  They teach that Man is no good.  He is just a machine.  Such a philosophy became “necessary” when leaders entered wars that killed off thirty million people at a crack.  This philosophy justifies the overt.  “You have to have a philosophy that Man is no good, in order to go on committing overts.”

“So ... Man’s mental subjects first didn’t bother to understand anything about Man, and so then began to commit overts, and then employment was found for these blokes by fellows who had to have their overts justified”: the Hitlers and the Stalins.  Man is not more degraded than he was.  It is just that Man’s mental sciences have “departed from the traditional, which had to do with the dignity of Man.”  Wundt made his big mistake at Leipzig, in 1879, and Pavlov and psychiatry came riding in.

Scientology is in the great tradition of the dignity of Man.  The ideas that we are moving along with are the traditional ideas.  These ideas have to do with attention, perception, power of choice, and motivation of behavior. We do not go on the basis of how wicked everyone is.  We just ask what these things are.  The idea that men are animals was always there to be bought, but it wasn’t until 1879 that it got taken up.  So modern psychology is the upstart subject.  Modern psychology and psychiatry came from the Russian and the German -- two groups of people who have no enviable reputation for humanitarianism.  If the Germans had just stopped with music and cameras, we would be fine.  But every once in awhile, they got careless with guns.  Psychiatry came from Germany and modern psychology came from the Russians.

Psychology is really a sub-study of scientology, and, as such, it is our property.  After all, psychologists can’t even define “psychology”.  It should have its spelling changed to psyche-ology -- study of the soul -- so as to reflect its true and traditional meaning.

It is the psychiatrists and “psychologists” who are the radicals. Scientologists and the traditionalists.  We are the conservatives.

Psychiatry, psychology, philosophy, and religion and all subsumed in scientology.  The radical approaches have had their chance and have failed to produce results.  They should stand aside in favor of the more traditional approach.  Psychology, as psyche-ology, should be seen as being part of scientology.

The eyes can see by putting something there to be perceived, as well as by perceiving what is there.  Learning nomenclature is equivalent to learning what is there.  Treat the PE course as an area where people can learn the language and find out what is there to be named, and students will come up smiling.  If they don’t understand the words, they blow, natter, and commit overts.  Thus we build our own opposition. 

6409C03 SHSpec-38 Clearing -- What It Is

“Clear” means what it meant in Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, which is the same as what it means on adding machines.  Computers have complex circuits.  Sometimes a drop of solder gets dropped in, which short-circuits the circuits and adds some wrong constant factor to the computer.  In mechanical adding machines, if you never pushed the “clear” button after the previous operation, you would get the old total added in.  That is the uncleared answer, where old data modifies PT data.  The mind, likewise, will add old answers into current computations and get wrong answers.  A person’s memory will be bad in the area where the old answer is stuck.  Amnesia is all the “held-down fives”, adding up to a total blank.  Memory is not a broad condition.  It is spotty as a leopard.  A person has bad memory in an area of aberration.  A traumatic experience is surrounded by locks, so sometimes it is hard to find.  There is no such thing, however, as a uniformly good or bad memory.  The worse off someone is, the more areas of no-memory there are. [Insanity becomes a way of obfuscating overts, as well as a motivator and a justifier for them.  If we could get a person to see the overt, all that insanity would become unnecessary.]

If you want to improve someone’s memory, you must ask, “Memory on what?” A person is aberrated in the area where his memory is poor.  There is a fairly good-sized piece of nuttiness occluding some area of his experience and memory.  All you have to do is to monkey with it a little, and it will start to clear.  Psychiatry errs by trying to make sense out of the incomprehensible.  It can’t be done, by definition.  You should not try to figure that “square shapes make people nervous”, because some patients were nervous around doors.  Instead, you should find out how come the patients got nuts on the subject of doors.  You don’t try to make sense out of the incomprehensible.  All you have to do is to understand that he [the person who has presented you with the incomprehensible] doesn’t understand it, and to start looking for where it came from.  

People are far more normal than they are crazy. [Cf. H.S. Sullivan] Nobody is totally crazy.  Other “mental sciences” go crazy on this fact, because of Man’s thirst for “allness”, which is just the craving to identify A with A.  Psychiatrists, going A=A=A, think that there is such a thing as a total insanity, and that therefore there is such a thing as the state of being insane.  Even in his legal systems, Man has to have something called “insanity”.  This is not correct:  A person is insane in one or more areas or subjects.  There is no such thing as total insanity.  A gibbering idiot who asks for a glass of water when he is thirsty is sane in that area.  The sentence, “This man is insane,” requires three dots at its end to show that it is incomplete:  Psychiatrists have never completed the sentence so that it reads properly and accurately as, “This man is insane on the subject of _______ .”  But if psychiatrists knew that much about the subject of insanity, they could cure it.  It is the missing link.

Actually, they have never defined their terms.  If you ask a psychiatrist, “What subject is this guy insane on?”, he would say, maybe, “Exhibitionism!”  Bull pucky!!  That’s a condition, not a subject.  You can’t classify insanities, because no insanity is the same, on the same subject, as any other.

To finish the sentence, “This man is insane on the subject of _______ ,” psychiatrists would have to observe the patient.  Then they would see that there was no similarity to others’ insanity.

Find the subject on which a person is insane, find the source of the subject, and he will have cognitions and the aberration will blow.  “If you are in an area where the PC is cogniting, you must therefore be in an area where the PC was aberrated.”  You are tracking down and “clearing” a “held-down five”.  A cognition is a returned memory.  When the PC is cogniting, it is an indicator that he is getting rid of held-down fives.  And he will be remembering better in that area.  If a person never cognites, you aren’t tracking down any held-down fives.

“Clear” means “on any given subject, not nuts anymore”, especially where the person has been pretty nuts.  You could say, for example, “On the subject of children, this person is clear.” You would have to put it into the framework of a relationship of some kind.  When you have hit enough stuck fives, you can call the guy a clear, which means “a cleared being, with a cleared ability to think”.  A guy who has been cleared in a given area of aberration can’t go nuts in that area again.  It took a fantastically off-the-wall set of circumstances to aberrate the person in the first place. To aberrate him again, you would have to get the same weird circumstances all together again, and then some, because now he is educated, too.  He knows how it happened.  A cleared person, or clear, would be a person with no obvious aberrations and with a majority of areas cleared, who has a cleared ability to think.

The basic business of an auditor is to use scientology tech to locate areas of aberration in the being, and then to follow those areas down until the person recognized an earlier causation for the condition.  He would then be unable to reconstruct his nuttiness in that area, because the thing that had him aberrated in the first place is gone, and he also knows that he has been nuts in that area, so when he sees something approaching that could be a recurrence of the condition, he pre-understands what might happen again, and it won’t happen.  Having had the experience [and being aware of it] is like being inoculated.  He couldn’t go nuts again in that area if he tried. Therefore clearing is stable.  

The state of total causation is not the same as the state of clear.  The state of total causation is OT, which is different from being unaberrated. Clearing is something that applies to the mind.  It is related to a finite state of existence -- the ability to survive well in everyday existence, in the universe, across time.  When we try to make clear an absolute, we go beyond that into another area that has the side-effects of clear, although you are not trying to fix the guy up.  The final result is total resumption of beingness at total causation, which isn’t necessarily in the physical universe, in finite time.

Clearing is an assist to finite existence, not some supernatural thing. Man doesn’t leap from a state of total aberration to a state of total divinity.  It is a long walk, which starts with the guy’s present environment.  The gradient scale only breaks down when the PC gets into running the things that make up the mind:  GPM’s.  Now you are handling uncommon, unnatural problems, like, “Why did the being make a time track? What is he doing in the physical universe?”, etc.  An individual who had no time at all would not be normal!  It takes a different framework to explain this.

Now you have an individual who, through his understandings of what is around him and his exact handling of the masses and significances in his immediate vicinity, has a gradual emergence and cognition of what is going on.  We are knocking out his concept of existence and replacing it with total knowingness of existence.  That individual is emerging towards causation, not towards being cleared.  He is going towards a point where he causes the past, not where he is cleared of the past.  The aberrations you are taking away from him on R6 are not timed aberrations.  That is what makes them build up, and that is why they are rough.  They can’t be blown by meter dating; they date “now”.  However, you can date and blow an implant.  A GPM isn’t something that happened in the year 2681 B  That is quite different from something that happened within the universe, that you can fit in on the time track.  If you find an engram, all you have to do it date it, and it goes, “Bzzt!” The PC wouldn’t have a prayer of getting it back.  After the guy is clear, you begin to ask, “Where is the time coming from, that you are dating the clearing in?” Now you are into R6 and OT.  The guy is “more causative over the universe; less worried about what the universe is doing to him.”  You are going from the finite to the infinite.  The field of re-creation of the individual, or the individual’s rising up towards total cause, is a long and arduous road.  You don’t run out of GPM’s very fast.

The point is, that there is a separation point between the finite universe and the world of total beingness.  People going towards clearing are interested in physical well-being and their relationships with other human beings.  They are interested in accomplishing finite goals in the physical universe, like keeping a job, etc.  If a person going up the other track hasn’t totally followed the clearing track, he is still interested in those things, too, although perhaps not so aberratedly.  But only people who are interested in clearing are interested in finite physical universe goals.  

If someone is “insane”, you remove the individual areas of aberration as they become accessible and leave a growing core of sanity that was always there.  “Somewhere along the line, he ceases to be interested in becoming clear of his past ... and he begins to be very sincerely ... interested in causation: personal, individual causation.”  What is the individual’s relationship to and responsibility with regard to the physical universe?  The individual is also capable of going nuts in this direction and thinking that he is God, but only if he isn’t really past the gates on the road.  Clearing ceases when the individual can recognize his basic GPM’s and knows where they came from, etc.  Ordinary clearing procedures won’t touch GPM’s, so clearing ceases.  Now you go into running GPM’s.  The person soon gets over being interested in blowing out the electric light or wondering if he could do this, etc.  He gets more serious-minded about the situation as it becomes more real to him and more natural to him.  He stops worrying about other people getting to be OT.  The end of the road is in view, and it is a finite road.

So the two roads are different.  One has to do with processing somebody within the limits of time and experience, deleting things that keep the individual from getting right answers in existence.  The other is different. Auditing changes; the individual’s responses to auditing change.  You can still shift the pre-OT back a little onto the other road.  If you do this too much, he collides with the next GPM and it jams the meter.  The locks are now all on top of GPM’s, not on traumatic life experiences.  [Charge on a subject could lead to misunderstanding a word on the subject.  Clarification of the word would cause dropping away of some locks on the subject.  This could apply to GPM words also.]

It isn’t how big or how little a person’s aberrations are that counts. It is how many aberrations he has.  The closer the aberrations are in subject to each other, the more there are.  These aberrations are not necessarily [based on] dramatic or interesting experiences, either, although the PC may try to make more out of them than is actually there. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 SEPTEMBER 1964

Remimeo 
Franchise 
Sthil Students
CLAY TABLE LEVELS

Until such time as accumulated data may otherwise indicate, and to prevent a beautifully effective area of processing being messed up by inept use on pcs, the following policies are in force for all uses of the Clay Table:

Clay Table work is Level III. This means that it can be used by any HCA/HPA. Any student in training for HCA/HPA in an Academy may use, by general policy, HCA/HPA processes in the Academy while undergoing training. It can be used on any HQS student by an HCA/HPA student. It cannot be used by or taught to HQS students.

Only the student who has completed his HCA training may use it on outside pcs or in an HGC.

No Clay Table work of any kind may be used in PE work or in HAS Co-audits or in public co-audits of any kind where the co-auditors are not already trained in an Academy on Clay Table work.

By recent policy relaxing pc gradation, pcs at any level may be run on Clay Table but only by a Level III (HCA/HPA) trained auditor or in an Academy by someone being trained in Level III processes.

Clay Table work looks simple, works fast. But it is essentially a listing type process where things are being selected to run and that makes it solidly Level III.

Expert handling of the auditing Comm Cycle and other fine points are vital to working with a pc on a Clay Table. One has to understand the theory of clearing as given in the Saint Hill tape lecture of 3 Sept ‘64.

Clay Table evolves Homo Sapiens into Homo Novis, the new man. Clearing in its earliest, original sense, is easily obtained by Clay Table work in the hands of the auditor trained at Level III.

That is a marvelous thing. There is no reason to wreck it in pcs and spoil it for them by letting it be badly used by untrained persons.

Clay Table training will be available in Academies across the world. R6 auditors leaving Saint Hill and heading for key points in international central organizations have been carefully trained on Clay Table work and even as this is being written, it is being set up for teaching in most Academies. There is therefore no excuse to use it incorrectly.

Clay Table work handles:

1. 	The longstanding goal of getting clear, without exceptions or only minor percentages making it—with it comes broad, general clearing. It may have been overdue for a while, but it is here: clearing for anybody;

2. 	Improvement of work accomplishment by staffs;

3. 	Rapid, certain gains in HGCs as a routine activity by HCA/HPAs;

4. 	A penetration of the world of healing and a definite change in our attitude toward healing;

5. 	More rapid progress through upper courses.

There are other gains attainable in Clay Table work. But the above five are the ones you will soon get the full benefit of technically and organizationally.

The only things which can inhibit these gains are:

(a) 	Trying to use Clay Table work without complete briefing;

(b) 	Use of it by auditors below Level III.

I sought for a long while for the technology up to Level IV. We have now achieved it. Let’s go at it right, get it correctly applied, and succeed with it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 SEPTEMBER 1964
Issue II
Remimeo 
Franchise 	
Sthil Students
ALL LEVELS

PTPs, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS

Just to remind you, other auditing is not possible in the presence of Present Time Problems and Overts. No auditing is possible in the presence of an ARC Break.

These are data like “Acknowledge the pc”, “An auditor is one who listens” etc. These belong in the ABCs of Scientology.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEMS

When a pc has a PTP and you don’t handle it, you get no gain. There will be no rise on a personality test graph. There will be little if any TA action. There will be no gain in the session. The pc will not make his session goals. Etc. Etc. So you don’t audit pcs who have PTPs on anything but the PTPs the pc has.

And you don’t audit PTPs slowly and forever. There are numerous ways of handling PTPs. One of them is “What communication have you left incomplete about that problem?” A few answers and poof! no PTP. Another is “What doesn’t (that person or thing pc is having PTP with) know about you?” Other versions of overts and withholds can be used. These are all fast PTP handling methods and they get rid of the PTP and you can audit what you started to audit.

The mark of a ruddy amateur in auditing is somebody who can always do successful assists but can’t do a real session. The secret is: in an assist you are handling the PTP, aren’t you? So you never audit over the top of (in the presence of) a PTP!

Another circumstance is “can’t get down to real auditing because the pc always has so many PTPs”. This is only a confession that one can’t handle a PTP and then get on with the session. One fumbles with the PTPs so badly as an auditor one never really handles the pc’s PTPs so of course one never gets on with the job at hand—auditing the pc.

The pro, in a real session, just handles the PTPs quickly, gets the pc into session and gets on with whatever should be run.

OVERTS

Overts are the other principal source of getting no gain.

Here we really can tell the goony birds from the eagles professionally.

No pro would think of auditing a pc on other processes in the presence of overts.

1. 	The Pro would recognize by the pc’s natter, or lack of previous gain, that the pc had overts;

2. 	The Pro would know that if he tried to do something else besides pull these overts, the pc would eventually get critical of the auditor; and

3. 	The Pro wouldn’t (a) fail to pull the real overts or (b) ARC Break the pc in getting the overts off.

If one gets “reasonable” about the pc’s condition and starts agreeing with the motivators (“look at all the bad things they did to me”), thus ignoring the overts, that’s the end of gains for that pc with that auditor.

If one is clumsy in recognizing overts, if one fails to get the pc to give them up, if one fails to properly acknowledge the overt when given, or if one demands overts that aren’t there, overt pulling becomes a howling mess.

Because, then, getting the pc overts off is a tricky business auditors sometimes become shy of doing it. And fail as auditors.

Sometimes pcs who have big overts become highly critical of the auditor and get in a lot of snide comments about the auditor. If the overt causing it is not pulled the pc will get no gains and may even get ARC broken. If the auditor doesn’t realize that such natter always indicates a real overt, when pcs do it, eventually over the years it makes an auditor shy of auditing.

Auditors buy “critical thoughts” the pc “has had” as real overts, whereas a critical thought is a symptom of an overt, not the overt itself. Under these critical thoughts a real overt lies undetected.

Also, I love these pcs who “have to get off a withhold about you. Last night Jim said you were awful ........” An experienced auditor closes the right eye slightly, cocks his head a bit to the left and says, “What have you been doing to me I haven’t known about?” “I thought .....” begins the pc. “The question is”, says the old pro, “What have you been doing to me that I don’t know about. The word is doing. “ And off comes the overt like “I’ve been getting audited by Bessy Squirrel between sessions in the Coffee Shop.”

Well, some auditors are so “reasonable” they never really learn the mechanism and go on getting criticized and getting no gains on pcs and all that. I once heard an auditor say “Of course he was critical of me. What he said was true. I’d been doing a terrible job.” The moral of this story is contained in the fact that this auditor’s pc died. A rare thing but a true one. The pc had terrible overts on Scientology and the auditor, yet this auditor was so “reasonable” those overts were never cleaned up. And that was the end of those auditing sessions.

It’s almost never that drastic, but if an auditor won’t pull overts, well auditing gets pretty unpleasant and pretty pointless too.

A lack of grasp of the overt-motivator sequence (when somebody has committed an overt, he or she has to claim the existence of motivators—the Ded-Dedex version of Dianetics—or simply when one has a motivator he is liable to hang himself by committing an overt) puts an auditor at a very bad disadvantage. Howling pcs and no pc wins.

ARC BREAKS

You can’t audit an ARC Break. In fact you must never audit in the presence of one.  Auditing below Level III, the best thing to do is find an auditor who can do ARC Break Assessments.

At Level III and above, do an ARC Break Assessment on the pc. An ARC Break Assessment consists of reading an ARC Break list appropriate to the activity to the pc on a meter and doing nothing but locate and then indicate the charges found by telling the pc what registered on the needle.

That isn’t auditing because it doesn’t use the auditing comm cycle. You don’t ack what the pc says, you don’t ask the pc what it is. You don’t comm. You assess the list between you and the meter, same as no pc there. Then you find what reads and-you tell the pc. And that’s all.

A by-passed charge assessment is auditing because you clean every tick of the needle on the list being assessed. The pc is acked, the pc is permitted to Itsa and give his opinions. But you never do a by-passed charge assessment on an ARC Broken pc. You do an ARC Break Assessment as per the paragraph above this one.

These two different activities unfortunately have the word “assessment” in common and they use the same list. Therefore some students confuse them. To do so is sudden death.

You can really clobber a pc by doing a by-passed charge assessment on an ARC Broken pc. And also you can ARC Break a pc by doing an ARC Break Assessment on a pc who isn’t (or has ceased to be) ARC Broken.

So unless you have these two separate and different actions—the ARC Break Assessment and the by-passed charge assessment—clearly understood and can do both of them well and never get too rattled to know which one to use, you can get into plenty of trouble as an auditor.

Only auditing over the top of an ARC Break can reduce a graph, hang the pc up in sessions or worsen his case. So it’s the next to the most serious blunder that an auditor can make. (The most serious error is to deny assistance either by not trying to get the pc into session or not using Scientology at all.)

Auditing an ARC Broken pc and never realizing it can lead to very serious trouble for the auditor and will worsen the pc’s case—the only thing that will.

SUMMARY

It is elementary auditing knowledge that no gains occur in the presence of PTPs or overts and that cases worsen when audited over the top of an ARC Break.

There aren’t “lots more conditions that can exist”. Given an auditing session there are only these three barriers to auditing.

When you do Clay Table auditing or any other kind of auditing the rules all still apply. A change of process or routine doesn’t change the rules.

In doing Clay Table auditing off a meter one still handles the elements of a session. One puts the pc on the meter to start off and checks for PTPs, overts, withholds, even ARC Breaks, handles them quickly and then goes into the body of the session. Much the same as the oldest model session rudiments. One doesn’t use Mid Ruds or buttons to get started. One just knows the things that mustn’t be there (PTPs, overts, ARC Breaks) and checks for them, handles if found and goes on with the main session activity. If a PTP or an overt or an ARC Break shows up one handles them, putting the pc back on the meter if necessary. When they are handled, the pc is put back into the main activity of the session.

It’s true of any auditing that gets done. It isn’t likely to alter and actually no new data is likely to be found that controverts any of this. The phenomena will still be the same phenomena as long as there are pcs. Ways of handling may change but not these basic principles.

They’re with the auditor in every session ever to be run. So one might as well stay alert to them and be continuously expert in handling them.

They are the only big reefs on which an auditing session can go up high and dry, so their existence, causes and cures are of the greatest possible importance to the skilled auditor.

								L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students	
LEVELS II to IV

OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM?

I recently made a very basic discovery on the subject of overts and would like to rapidly make a note of it for the record.

You can call this the “Cycle of an Overt”.

4. 	A being appears to have a motivator.

3. 	This is because of an overt the being has done.

2. 	The being committed an overt because he didn’t understand something.

1. 	The being didn’t understand something because a word or symbol was not understood.

Thus all caved-in conditions, illness, etc, can be traced back to a misunderstood symbol, strange as that may seem.

It goes like this:

1. 	A being doesn’t get the meaning of a word or symbol.

2. 	This causes the being to misunderstand the area of the symbol or word (who used it whatever it applied to);

3. 	This causes the being to feel different from or antagonize toward the user or whatever of the symbol and so makes it all right to commit an overt;

4. 	Having committed the overt, the being now feels he has to have a motivator and so feels caved in.

This is the stuff of which Hades is made. This is the trap. This is why people get sick. This is stupidity and lack of ability.

This is why Clay Table Auditing works.

Clearing a pc then consists only of locating the area of the motivator, finding what was misunderstood and getting the word made into clay and explained. The overts blow. Pure magic.

The trick is locating the area where the pc has one of these.

This is discussed further in Saint Hill lecture of 3 Sept 1964, but is too important a discovery to leave only in tape form.

The cycle is Misunderstood word or symbol—separation from ARC with the things associated with the word or symbol—overt committed—motivator felt necessary to justify the overt—decline of freedom, activeness, intelligence, well being and health.

Knowing this and the technology of auditing one can then handle and clear these symbols and words and produce the gains we have described as being clear, for the things causing the decline are cleared out of the being.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER 1964
Remimeo
Sthil Students
LEVEL III

CLAY TABLE HEALING

The purpose, actions and the auditor commands of Clay Table Healing are completely different from those of Clay Table Clearing.

When undertaking Clay Table Clearing one can also from time to time do Clay Table Healing on the pc. In fact one commonly starts out Clay Table Clearing by doing Clay Table Healing to get the hidden standards (things the pc uses to tell if the process is working) out of the way.

However, when one is working on pcs to heal, not to clear, and when the sole object of auditing is healing, then one does not move over into clearing during a given series of sessions but only uses Clay Table Healing.

Example: Mrs. G comes to be audited to heal her bad arm. On her, only Clay Table Healing is used. Mrs. Y comes to improve her ability. On her, Clay Table Clearing is used and as sessions progress, some sessions of Clay Table Healing also become necessary in the general course of auditing. Mrs. G would have to alter her reasons for being processed on her own say-so before one would move her into Clearing. This point is made to clarify for auditors the fact that when people want to be healed, they are given healing and one doesn’t force them into living better lives also. This takes care of case levels.

Clay Table Healing uses a different, more repetitive, easier approach than Clay Table Clearing. One completes cycles of action over and over on the pc.

The steps are:

STEP 1. 	Get the pc to name the condition the pc requires to be healed.

STEP 2. 	Make sure the pc is satisfied this is the condition he or she wants to be healed, (this and 3 can be meter steps).

STEP 3. 	Get the pc to name a body part that seems most closely associated with the condition.

STEP 4. 	Make sure the pc is satisfied he or she has given the correct part.

STEP 5. 	Get the pc to represent the named body part in clay or whatever modelling substance is being used.

STEP 6. 	Make sure the pc is satisfied the body part has been represented.

STEP 7. 	Get the pc to state “what should be near” the body part just made.

STEP 8. 	Make sure the pc is satisfied he or she has stated the correct thing for 7.

STEP 9. 	Get the pc to represent whatever is named in 7 in clay.

STEP 10.	Make sure the pc is satisfied he or she has represented it.
STEP 11.	Begin with 5 again and do not re-do 1 to 4 inclusive until the upsets in No. 3 have vanished.

STEP 12.	Begin with 3 again.

STEP 13.	Begin with 1 again when condition vanishes.

Caution: To re-do the condition every time or to change the body part to be healed every time are failures to flatten the process before beginning another.

The whole process is flat only when No. 1 is flat by which is meant the condition has vanished. But one doesn’t even test for the condition again until the afflicted body part is recovered.

So there are two things to flatten. One first flattens the body part, or several body parts before choosing a new condition to handle.

To be explicit, when one has done 5 onward over and over until there is no difficulty in the body part left, one checks the condition and if it has not vanished one finds a new body part (3) to fit the condition and using this does 5 onward over and over until that is flat. Then one checks the condition (l) again and if it is still there, one finds a new body part and uses it for doing 5 onward over and over. One does this until the condition ( l ) has vanished.

You get a session then that looks like this in terms of the above step numbers.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 
11, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 
13, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 
7, 8, 9, 10, 11,5, 6 . . . . . and so forth.

This is very easy auditing providing you do not do the following goofs.

A. 	To touch the pc’s clay is fatal. Never touch the pc’s clay.

B. 	Tell the pc what is wrong with him or her. Never evaluate.

C. 	Fail to flatten a body part. Never leave a body part until it is O.K.

D. 	Choose another condition before the original condition is gone. Always get another body part to do if the pc’s attention is at all on the condition.

E. 	Fail to get the pc to make up the affected body part each time. Always get the pc to make up the body part being used newly.

F. 	Fail to follow the Auditor’s Code. Always follow it.
G. 	Fail to use the Auditing Comm Cycle every time the pc does or says anything he or she wants you to understand.
H. 	Pass over something the pc did or said that you didn’t understand. Always get it so you the auditor understand it.

I. 	Audit a pc with a PTP. Always clean up PTPs.

J. 	Audit a pc who has an undisclosed overt Always clean up the overts.

K. 	Audit over the top of an ARC Break. Handle ARC Breaks properly on the meter.

SUMMARY

Clay Table Healing is a study in repetition and simplicity for an auditor. It is easy. It is very successful. But it is very simple auditing. However that simplicity has to be done right. Therefore it is a very precise series of actions.

An auditor who can’t handle the auditing comm cycle shouldn’t ever be let near Clay Table Healing as the pc will be made ill by constant ARC Breaks.

The above A to K precautions are all but one (don’t touch the clay) basic standard auditing. They must be well done skills each one before Clay Table Healing can be routinely successful. Failure to have these skills of auditing well in hand will give very uneven results—one pc gets better, another pc no change, another gets worse. Uniform results come from uniform auditing skill.

The pc is put on the meter only at session beginning and end and is not metered during Clay Table work unless PTPs, overts or ARC Breaks become apparent at which time the pc is put on the meter for as long as is necessary to handle the matter.

No auditing occurs when the auditor takes up too much time with non-Clay Table activities in Clay Table Auditing.

Caution: The pc sometimes names some very peculiar body parts and sometimes says conditions are body parts. It is not for the auditor to argue, he or she is just to make sure that the pc is sure. Sometimes, going into Clay Table Clearing, you find yourself really doing Clay Table Healing. In such a case the auditor should use the healing approach, not the clearing approach. Example: Pc wants to improve his “walking” and we find this, according to the pc is a body part, so we use Clay Table Healing, not Clearing. Clay Table Clearing is a process of clearing words and symbols. Clay Table Healing is a process of taking ailments out of objects. The processes therefore can both be used, in clearing. But when you use one or the other you flatten it before returning to the other. And you keep the steps separate—don’t mix the steps. Use the steps of one or the steps of the other.

It should be noted in passing, as a point of interest, that a pc’s trouble with any object in addition to a body part, responds to Clay Table Healing. Where the object is not a body part but is still an object (like a car or a typewriter) you can use the Clay Table Healing steps. These Healing steps, however, unlike the Clearing steps, will not work well on a condition only. Healing steps become less workable when you try to audit “worry” or “being afraid”. They work best on “a leg” or “clumsy fingers”. Extending them beyond their purpose, to any part of any of the eight dynamics, the Healing steps drop in workability. Clearing steps, however, work on almost anything whether an object or a condition, but work better on conditions than upon objects.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER 1964
Issue II
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil
CLAY TABLE CLEARING

Now the goofs start coming in as how to not do Clearing.

If you don’t get a word asked for in Step III in HCO Bulletin Aug 18, ‘64 that expresses the “didn’t understand” in Step II you don’t get anywhere in Clay Table Clearing.

Example of a wrong one: Step I, pc says, “I want to improve my mind.” Step II (what pc hasn’t understood), “What the hell it is.” So far so good. Now the goof. Auditor gets Step III (word to represent the difficulty in II) as “Mind” and then does Step IV (modelling in Clay) using Mind. Of course the session goes nowhere. Pc has not answered question in Step III. “What the hell it is,” is not answered by “Mind”. “Mind” does not mean “What the hell it is.”

The original Aug 18 HCO Bulletin covers this. It says don’t let the pc solve II in the answer in III.

Pc in the “Mind” example is just answering his own question “What the hell is it” and there’s just one more solution on the case.

The auditor here could not possibly have grasped the overt-motivator cycle of 1. word—2. misunderstood idea—3. overt—4. motivator.

The correct answer for III here would never be Mind as that doesn’t package the thought “What the hell is it?” It answers the question “What the hell is it?” and so could never be accepted in III.

III in this example would be “Bafflement” or “Curiosity” or “Mystery” and that would be used in IV. Only these words mean “What the hell is it?”

Now don’t anybody hereafter avoid the word “Mind” in Clay Table because it’s used in this wrong example or they’ll destroy my faith in students.

Clay Table done right works. So when pcs don’t get better it hasn’t been done right. That’s the complete reason.

The word accepted by the auditor in Step III must mean the thought or difficulty given by the pc in Step II.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1964
Remimeo
Sthil Students
Sthil Staff
CLAY TABLE, MORE GOOFS

GOOF NO. 2

The auditor gets the body part in Clay Table Healing as “my fat body” and then insists on running “body”. Pc ARC Breaks.

The goof: When pc insists on a wording, run it. Don’t shove a pc into an ARC Break by contradicting.

Correct Action: Run “my fat body”.

GOOF NO. 3

The pc, in Clay Table Clearing, says he wants to improve his memory.

The auditor asks, of course, what difficulty the pc has had with “memory”.

The pc does not give a several-worded condition as is usual but says, “Remembering! “

The goof: The auditor then spends the next hour trying to get a word which represents “remembering”, not realizing the pc has already given it.

Correct Action: Run “Remembering”.

GOOF NO. 4

The coach in Clay Table Definitions complains bitterly to an Instructor that “the pc’s definitions are so far out the pc refuses to run Clay Table Definitions or do any Clay Table work at all”.

The goof: Forcing the student into an auditing-like activity when the student is ARC Broken.

One of the principal indicators of an ARC Break is refusing auditing or co-operation.

The Correct Action: Get an ARC Break Assessment done on the pc.

GOOF NO. 5

The auditor can’t get into Clay Table Work on the pc because the pc “has so many overts one has to spend all the session getting the pc to get off overts”.

The goofs:

(a) 	Not getting Clay Table work done in Clay Table sessions;

(b) 	Being too slow in getting a pc to get his overts off;

(c) 	Auditing off overts that would probably blow anyway on definitions;

(d) 	Not knowing the full definition—misunderstanding—overt—motivator cycle.

Correct Action: Get the pc to tell the auditor “something you’ve done that you’ve never told anybody else”. Get it. Check for missed withholds and if clean on the needle get on with Clay Table work.

GOOF NO. 6

The auditor in Clay Table Clearing gets “To improve my memory”, then as the difficulty step “What the hell is it?”

Then the auditor spends the next 2l/2 hours doing a sort of perpetual list trying to get the pc to answer, “What word would represent ‘What the hell is it’ “ and finally ARC Breaks the pc.

The goofs: 

(a) 	Turning the get-the-word into a kind of listing session; 

(b) 	Not accepting the word the pc thinks it is.

Correct Action: Take the first word that gives TA action and in which the pc is interested and use it for the thing to represent in clay. Step is usually about 3 or 4 minutes long.

GOOF NO. 7

In Clay Table Definitions the coach must get the student to write a label and put it on each clay object made.

The goof: Failure to get a label written and placed on the object.

Correct Action: Label everything on paper, in writing, in all Clay Table work.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6409C15 SHSpec-39 Scientology and Tradition

You have to understand something about policy.  Policy is not just something that LRH just dreamed up.  It is something that has been worked out and that has held true over a period of time.  If someone who was supervising staff knew all the policies on central orgs that have been worked out over the years, and if he did what they said, he would never have to solve a single problem.  Looking over any scene in an org and the policies for the area, LRH could routinely give the policy covering that situation.  It is interesting for an organization as young as this one to have this much policy.  Policy makes communication possible between two points.  This is its main function, not forcing people to obey orders.  In the absence of policy, you don’t have communication between two points, because the two points are not agreed on anything.

Tradition is, likewise, an agreement.  The above points about policy, therefore, also cover a civilization.  A civilization has mores and guides to conduct, which are agreed upon and which assist the general survival of the individual and the majority of the group.  Policy is, or should be, based on experience and should lead towards survival.  

So we have policies, customs, and procedures.  These are sequential doingnesses.  If you don’t know and follow these, you fall out of agreement with the people who are following them, and you will feel strange.  You might have a better way to do something than the agreed-upon way, but if your way is at wide variance with the accepted way, the others may shoot you.

If a society is too dissonant, it is no longer a civilization, because it does not have agreements.  There are all kinds of ways of getting married these days.  This bunch of mishmashes shows that there is something wrong with the institution of marriage as it now stands.  The rise of animalistic psychology has violated the individual’s right even to have customs. Behaviorism invalidates the idea that people should have customs.  There are only supposed to be pushbutton responses.  One is supposed to react to stimuli, etc.  Instead of policies, you have manipulation.  People and societies object to manipulation, especially hidden manipulation.  It violates the right to have a right way to do things.  It denies the individual the right to any sense at all.  It is no longer based on considerations of survival.  The dignity of Man involves the ability to decide policy with others.  Policy and customs are things that make sense, at least at the time that they are formulated.  Customs and policy look odd when they persist after the problem that they were created to handle has vanished.  When a tradition that originally made sense loses its sense, it may now have, as its rationale, “politeness”, or some such thing.  People tend to carry solutions into the future after the problem is licked.

Policies can conflict if realities are different.  For instance, in Miami, during the second world war, American planes had a habit of practicing dive bombing on hips entering harbors.  They got fired on by a Dutch ship returning from the South Pacific.

In scientology, we appear to be out of step.  But what we are out of step with is the new technology of control, which assumes that men are animals that should be handled by having their buttons pushed.  LRH was taught at Princeton that law proceeds from the customs of the people.  Law that proceeds only from a central source and ignores or seeks to change people’s customs will either be ignored or will bring on a revolution, as with Prohibition.  The Civil Rights Act also sought to change customs by legislation.  It violates the First Amendment and other amendments of the Constitution.  It violates the right to a jury trial, something that no one seemed to notice.  This produced a breakdown in communication, which resulted in disorder and rioting, because it was a violation of custom and an attempt at a central enforcement of custom.  The way to keep the peace is to keep the customs of the people. Military governors had this fact laid on them with an axe, since this was the way to keep civil bodies in back of the front lines under control.  Having them out of control was embarrassing.

When you violate the expected survival pattern of an area, you have said, “Die!” Bucking a custom is bucking a theta comm line.  You have cut the comm line between point A and point B.  Now their actions don’t mesh, since they are operating on different policies.  

Custom and policies are methods of bringing about communication and agreement along certain matters that lead to a higher level of survival.  If policy leads to a higher level of survival, it is good policy.  Poor policy leads to a lower level of survival, and bad policy leads to complete disaster.  This accounts for the ebb and flow of civilizations.  Civilizations could die out because their customs have become antiquated, but far more often civilizations are smashed by the fact that the central government or an external source (an invasion) has smashed the customs of the civilization. Today, on this planet, communism is engaged upon this process, using the Wundtian psychology of 1879.

Scientology is not in conflict with the customs of the planet or the universe.  Quite the contrary:  If you can communicate with anyone on the subject of scientology, he will agree with you, unless he misunderstands a word, since you are talking to him out of the traditional technologies of healing and the human spirit, and the traditional philosophies and psychologies: “Know the truth, and the truth will set you free!” This is an ancient policy of psychology that is now being violated.  For instance, Washington is now claiming that the government has the right to lie!  This violates the custom of “tell the truth” and the policy of the courts. Governments justify government lies in all sorts of ways, but individuals aren’t supposed to lie.  It is legal for governments to lie but not for the individual to lie.  This is bad news.

The man in the street will agree with you, as long as you don’t use words that are strange to him.  He will agree on ideas such as the idea that Man has a right to be free, to control his life, etc.  Our target is not to make an insane person quiet but to make him sane.  That has been the target of mental healing since the Stone Age, but not in the last half-century.  That is why we are looked upon as dangerous by the new faddists, who are interested in manipulation, not freedom.  They would argue with the idea that it is good for people to be free, an idea that has never been contested in civilized society.  Try asking a psychiatrist, “What are you trying to do with your patient?” He will never tell you that he is trying to make him sane.  He will obfuscate.  The slave philosophy was practiced in Sparta.  Communism is similar, but bolder.

“We have made progress in how to accomplish goals which Man has had as long as he has been Man.”  What we have developed that is new is a technology to attain the traditional goals of philosophy and religion.  Scientology’s way of expressing Man’s basic goals and our organizational methods may be new, but not the basic goals of scientology, which are the goals of Man.  We can improve on the idea behind the witch doctor: healing by manipulation of symbols.  We have the advantage of being able to communicate and have a session.  By “witch doctor” we do not mean someone who uses an African black magic juju, but a real healing witch doctor.

In the absence of orthodoxy, anything can be called unorthodox.  A society that has no right conduct is a society in which anyone can be punished and criticized, by art critics, scientific agencies, etc., “because he is not conducting himself rightly.”  You can no longer comply; there is nothing to comply with.  “They pretend there is a custom there, when there isn’t any, ... that there is a ‘1-2-3-4’ procedure, and then will never tell you what it is, and yet punish you because you don’t comply with it.”  The material wealth of a society doesn’t demonstrate its longevity or endurance.  Greece’s greatest art [and philosophy] was produced in its decline.  

The communication of custom is itself a technology.  When it breaks down, the custom can be abandoned.  Conversely, when the custom itself has broken down, you get communication breaking down.  We get a breakdown of a civilization when its customs break down because of a failure to communicate them.  You get no cooperation when people don’t know the customs on which they operate.  The means of communication of customs are no longer taught in this civilization.  This is where study tech and misunderstood word tech fits in.

So you could be remiss in teaching scientology by using words that are strange and misunderstood.  If you do this, you have not established communication.  Being comprehensible comes ahead of being effective, since comprehensibility makes your effectiveness apparent.  “If you’re truly comprehensible, [people] will forgive you almost anything, as witness my life.”  So the proper order of importance is:

1.  Comprehensibility.

2.  Necessity (demand).

3.  Effectiveness.  

6409C22 SHSpec-40 A Review of Study

There are no textbooks on how to study, even in schools of education. LRH plans to write one that would revolutionize the field of study and education.  In Johannesburg, tests on school children showed a decrease in I.Q. that was more marked, the longer they stayed in school.  The longer a person studies, of course, the more words he runs into that he doesn’t understand and the more confusion he piles up.

Artists, writers, etc., in the work-a-day world have this peculiarity: The successful ones have never taken a course in their art field or even finished college.  At a party given in New York for professional writers, LRH did an informal survey to determine the educational background of the guests. He found that most of them had either been expelled from college or had never attended college in the first place.  The one exception was a man who piped up and said that he had obtained a PhD in literature.  He turned out to be a literary agent, a failed writer.  In the years following, LRH found out that writing courses don’t teach writing.  They teach some technology that writers don’t use and various gimmicks that writers also don’t use.  Writers do have and use a technology, but writing courses don’t teach it.  The trouble is that writers are professional liars.  When then tell you how they write, they tell the most incredible tales:  They never really say what they do.  So there are a lot of pretended technologies in the area.

In any technical subject, technology builds up in the area of correction.  Such technologies as photographic retouching or correction lists tend to be more complex than the technologies that they correct.  If you have the technique of how to do it in the first place, everything will move smoothly from there on.  But if technology is missing, not known, or not practiced, we will now get a complicated technology arising as a lower-scale subject that will be corrective of the upper-scale subject.  Medicine is another example of a corrective technology.  The upper-scale technology would be that of making bodies properly in the first place.  

As practiced today all education is a corrective technology.  It is trying to correct its own failed corrections.  There is duress in the field to get students to learn.  This must be an effort to correct the students’ failure to get the material in the first place, caused by early confusions. Duress, in education, is a substitute for the missing technology of the misunderstood word and the cause of the failure of education.  The duress makes it impossible for the student to use his education.  He is left on a suppress and an only-one basis, because the duress has caused him to go out of ARC with the subject, so he does a non-application of the information.  He might even get weird and revengeful towards his subject.  Schools keep kids in line until they are old enough for the police to take over the job.

“Freedom from” is fighting something or worrying about it, not true freedom.

[One way in which you can have a misunderstood is by getting what the writer is saying but, having misunderstood or missed something (perhaps earlier), not getting what the writer is driving at.]

How does the state suffer from mis-education?  In Russia, many students were given on-the-job training for key posts.  But after their training, 100% of the students left the posts that they were trained for.  What must have happened is that, ‘way back in school, the communist love of changing the meanings of words got in there.  The English upper, governing class lost their influence by being educated to death.

So the continuation of a culture depends on having a technology of study.  The government is trying to bring in law and order, while creating disorder, delinquency, and stupidity in the schools.  Once again, scientology and dianetics collide with an area where there is a pretended technology. Unlike the area of medicine and drugs, the field of education is not one of vested interest, because there is not as much money in it.

When you are teaching teachers about study technology, you should recognize that you are moving them up from Level 0 to Level I.  [See pp. 521-523, above for a description of Level 0; above, for a description of Levels I and II; for a summary of Levels and Classes I-IV.]  You can tell the teachers, “The I.Q. of your children could be increased by study, instead of decreased,” or “Your school could run with less upset,” or “Juvenile delinquency is caused by mis-education.”  This will be very acceptable to them, and they will never think to ask where this data and knowledge is coming from, because they never think about anything in the first place.  You haven’t realized that they can’t see where it is coming from, because they can’t see at all!  This is because they have been trained into stupidity.

When you fail to communicate to someone about scientology, it is because you are talking to them above the level at which you should be talking to them.  You’ve got to give them the idea that there are data, that data can be comprehended, and that they can learn something.  Then you can give them the idea that there is knowledge.  People don’t expect anything to work, because nothing ever has.  They don’t think that there is anything to know.  If we are unreal to them, it is because everything is unreal to them.  We have a high command-value over them.  Scientology could probably put the whole society into some kind of obedience basis, but that is not our purpose.  

You would have a win if you approached someone on the following gradient:

1.  Getting him into a state where he could learn.

2.  Showing him that there was something to be studied.

3.  Showing him that there was a body of information about study.

4.  Showing him that there was a body of information to study.  

This hasn’t been our normal approach.  We have generally overlooked the fact that if someone can’t learn, he can’t even receive your message.  In fact, his basic PTP’s have to do with not knowing.  If he knew that there was some way to learn about anything, he would be very interested.  If he could know that there was some way to gather data, he would be on your side, because he could apply this to his PTP’s.  You would teach him that the first step to knowing about something is to observe it.  Both you and he have probably taken it for granted that he is already doing that, when he isn’t.  You could ask him something like, “Have you ever taken a really good look at what your wife is doing?”, or some such.

When you are teaching someone about study, you take the obvious and expand it, as an introduction to the field.  In dissemination, you are not up against society’s ignorance, cussedness, or unwillingness to be helped, but against incorrect study tech and charge on study.  This jams your comm line. Incorrect study tech prohibits people from learning that there is more to know, thus stultifying the intellect, creating stupidity, and discouraging observation.  Therefore study is an excellent dissemination tool.  When disseminating, stay simple.  Concentrate on something like, “One learns through observation, which is accomplished by observing.” Tell them about the value of observing, gaining familiarity, etc.  Don’t start with the ARC triangle:  The person that you are disseminating to doesn’t know that knowledge hasn’t already all been found out.  He has to come to realize that he can learn and that there is more to know.  Since he first tried to learn something, he has been subjected to a technology that stultifies the intellect.  He has weird ideas about study that make him flinch from the idea of learning things.  You have to make him reach by giving him the obvious, which he can see.  Take the obvious points and get studious about them.  You can get away with being studious about what is obvious.  A person isn’t going to get anywhere except by observation, anyway.  Let him get complex about the subject of observation.  He will only wind up back at observing.  He will get to the fact that you observe by observing, after he blows through the complexity.  By reach and withdraw of observation, he gets more familiar, e.g. with his wife.

Thus, study can bring him out of it. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1964 
Remimeo 
Sthil Students
LEVEL IV

CLAY TABLE CLEARING

(This HCO Bulletin cancels the steps of
Clay Table Clearing in HCO Bulletin of Aug 18 AD14.)

The original issue of “Clay Table Clearing” was called “Clay Table IQ Processing”.

The materials were not broadly released pending the outcome of pilot projects I conducted.

I find now that the HCO Bulletin of Aug 17, AD14 which covered Clay Table IQ Processing was the better process. HCO Bulletin of Aug 18, AD14, Clay Table Clearing, was not as good as the first process I released as auditors had more trouble with it.

In using Clay Table Clearing as per the HCO Bulletin of Aug 18, AD14, auditors asking for the answer in Step II (what about the subject the pc hadn’t grasped) always got a question as the pc’s answer. Example of the error: Auditor: “What do you want to improve?” Pc: “My memory.” Auditor: (Step Two) “What about memory haven’t you grasped?” Pc: “What it is.” Auditor: “Reduce that to a single term.” Pc: “Remembering.” End of Example of error.

You see that the auditor’s question was answered by a pc’s question about the subject. (What it is.)

Therefore, the pc answered his own question for the next step, Step III. (Remembering.)

You now have a solution to get the pc to represent in clay. It has restimulated the real earlier missed word. The pc’s solution to the pc’s question won’t lead anywhere in being processed.

So this isn’t correct to get a pc question as the answer to II or a pc’s solution to the pc’s question as the answer to III. This takes clearing nowhere. And also, restimulating an earlier word in the pc’s bank that is misunderstood, puts by-passed charge into the session, leading to a possible ARC Break.

We learn then that

1. 	We mustn’t ask the pc a question about what he wants to improve that will cause the pc to answer with his own question, and

2. 	We must not take a new solution to the pc’s difficulty to represent in Clay.

A solution is later in time than the upset about the subject. The cause of the upset is always an earlier misunderstood term. The term is therefore restimulated in trying to represent the solution. The term then becomes by-passed charge.

Therefore we also learn this phenomenon:

IF YOU GET THE WRONG THING TO REPRESENT IN CLAY IT WILL RESTIMULATE THE RIGHT THING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED AND THE WRONG THING WILL NOT ITSELF BLOW IF REPRESENTED IN CLAY AS IT IS NOT EARLY ENOUGH.

Therefore, done wrong, Clay Table Clearing will not seem to work and will also ARC Break the pc.

Clay Table Clearing is then relegated to Level IV and only Clay Table Healing (where the chance of wrong words is remote) is placed at Level III. At Level IV the auditor has been trained to do ARC Break Assessments. Obviously, Clay Table work needs its own ARC Break Assessment list.

The Important things are

1. 	Don’t let the pc answer “what about it he wants to improve” with a question, and

2. 	Don’t let the pc give you a new solution to his difficulty as the thing to represent in Clay.

In Clay Table IQ Processing as per HCO Bulletin of Aug 17, AD14, this didn’t arise because the auditor’s question was asking only for a term.

These are other things I’ve learned about this process from watching other auditors use it and with the above these are incorporated into the following brief rundown of Revised Clay Table Clearing.

CLAY TABLE CLEARING
ISSUE 2

STEP I: Find an area where the pc is trying to get smarter or wants to Improve, or wants to become more able. This we will call THE SUBJECT. It must not be a physical body part as that is Clay Table Healing. If the pc gives a physical body part or Health, change to Clay Table Healing.

STEP II: The caution here is don’t let the pc toss this off carelessly. It must be some subject in which the pc really wants to improve or some subject in which the pc really is trying to get smarter. If pc is sarcastic do an ARC Break Assessment from an appropriate list. Establish that the pc sincerely wants to improve in the subject or get smarter about it or become more able in it. Write the Subject in the Auditor’s Report.

STEP III: Trace back (no meter, make no lists) a word or term the pc has had difficulty with in the Subject. This is called THE TERM. The usual question would be “What word or term have you had difficulty with in (subject name)?”

STEP IV: Satisfy yourself that this is the word or term the pc has had difficulty with. But do not make lists or go on and on getting the pc to change terms for hours as Step III and Step IV require only a few minutes or even seconds usually. Write the term in the Auditor’s Report.

STEP V: Tell the pc “Represent that term in clay.” Pc may represent it and any related masses in Clay and may work on it as long as he or she likes.

STEP VI: Make sure pc labels with paper and pen or in some similar way each thing the pc represents. Make sure you do not touch or take away the pc’s clay. Be honest if you don’t understand what the pc is doing and get the pc to make you understand it, using labels and clay (not long verbal dissertations not related to the clay and labels). Make sure you don’t evaluate for the pc or tell the pc what his models or difficulties are all about. Make sure the pc is satisfied he has represented the TERM in Clay. Don’t ARC Break the pc by refusing the obvious or by letting the pc quit while the pc is still dissatisfied he has done it—a nice balance to maintain. Make sure the pc is satisfied he has represented the term in Clay.

STEP VII: Have the pc do the TERM in Clay again. This is repetitive representation in Clay. Do not do or continue to do this step after the pc has had a big cognition about the TERM which blows it (or blows the whole subject). In this step the TERM can be done over and over many times. The test is whether or not the pc has fully understood it. (Note: With terms on which the pc has no definition at all, the pc can look them up in the dictionary or the auditor can look them up for him. But the term must still be done in Clay as there was some reason the pc missed it.)

STEP VIII: When the TERM is flat, go back to the SUBJECT and ask the pc how he feels about it. If there is the least hesitation or any evidence of discomfort or doubt about the SUBJECT, continue to use the same Subject and go on with STEP III above, locating a new TERM for the same Subject. Be very careful however that the pc’s attitude stems from the Subject itself and not an ARC Break. Go on down the Steps with this new Term for the same Subject.
STEP IX: When you have handled enough Terms to produce a very obvious change and when the Subject is obviously flat by reason of cognitions or abilities regained, go to Step I for a new SUBJECT and carry it through the steps as above.

CAUTION: Pcs with PTPs, Overts, Missed Withholds and ARC Breaks will not progress under ROUTINE auditing. These must be handled. See The Book of Case Remedies and other sources for data on how to handle PTPs, Overts, Missed Withholds and ARC Breaks.

ROUTINE USE REMEDIES

Note the new expanded definition for the old word Routine and the new word REMEDY. This special use of the word ROUTINE accidentally fits the way it was formerly used. But it was used more loosely then to mean any combination of processes in a package whereas it now means “that which advances the usual case that is in session and has no PTPs, Overts or ARC Breaks in restimulation.”

A Routine such as Clay Table Clearing is for routine use. It is for normal case advance. Pcs with PTPs, Overts, Missed Withholds, Hidden Standards, etc, as well as ARC Breaks do not advance on a Routine. These require a Remedy.

A Remedy is “something you do to get the pc into condition for Routine auditing”.

This concept is new and is very much needed. It constitutes a bit of a breakthrough in itself.

When you attempt Routine auditing such as Clay Table Clearing on a pc who has longstanding PTPs or has just got one for the session, or has overts or withholds or an ARC Break, you will get no advance from routine auditing. You have to Remedy the case by rudiments or special processes. Then when the case is ready to run routinely, you can do or resume Clay Table Clearing.

There is no process that handles PTPs and rapidly advances the whole case also. There is no process that handles an immediate ARC Break and also advances the general condition of the case. Overt and withhold processes are excellent remedies but slow case advancers.

The mark of the skilled auditor is the ability to remedy a case and then get on with routine auditing. The auditor who only audits remedies will never really advance a case permanently and an auditor who can handle only routines and cannot remedy a case are alike in that they won’t make clears.

It is upon the dual ability of the auditor that clearing depends—the ability to spot the non-advancing case, spend a few sessions remedying it and then get on with routine auditing—the ability to get those fresh PTPs and overts in the first few minutes of the session and get on with the routine—these are two different auditing actions. The auditor who can observe which of these actions (the Remedy or the Routine) needs to be done and who can judge when they should be done and who knows the Remedies and who also knows the Routines can clear pcs.

The answer to clears now depends on the skill and training of the auditor far more than on the state of the pc’s case.

FUTURE ERRORS

After the pilot run on getting Clay Table Clearing ironed out in use in the auditor’s hands, and the blunders that will be made before auditors become familiar with the HCO Bulletins and these processes, I think the main errors will be found to be Gross Auditing Errors such as failing to get the pc to answer the auditing question and such like.

METER

Clay Table Clearing sessions are started with a meter. The meter is laid aside when the routine is actually begun. Checks for “Tone Arm Action” can be made mainly by observing the pc’s good indicators. If they’re in, the pc is getting TA. If they’re not observable, the pc isn’t getting TA. However, as Clay Table Clearing is at Level IV, NO PC WHO HAS NOT GOTTEN TA ACTION ON LOWER LEVEL PROCESSES SHOULD BE RUN ON CLAY TABLE CLEARING UNTIL HIS CASE IS REMEDIED. (Note: It has been observed in one pc who did not get TA action that correcting just one word the pc had misdefined in his bank brought about good indicators, but this was done merely by A Case Remedy using TWO-WAY COMM, not by Clay Table Clearing. The pc thereafter got good TA—but would have done so after the Remedy on any process. Clay Table work is not for cases who get no TA in general. See The Book of Case Remedies. Do not confuse getting one word defined by two-way comm with Clay Table Clearing. They aren’t the same thing.)

The Meter is used at the beginning and end of session to handle rudiments and give data on state of needle and TA and is used during session only when pc has an ARC Break and then only to locate and indicate the charge on ARC Break Lists. When a remedy such as mid ruds is undertaken during the session the meter is also used.

SESSION FORM

Model Session as amended is used as the session form of Clay Table Clearing.

In using Model Session be careful not to restimulate overts and PTPs the pc obviously does not have in restimulation at session start.

If the pc is eager and talking about the Clay Table, give the usual Start of Session procedure, note down the TA and state of needle, give the Start of Session and swing at once into the body of the session.

When a session has been successful do an equally brief End of Session procedure and end it.

Only if the pc seems preoccupied at the start of session or the TA is found to be much higher than at the end of the last session or something seems wrong should you go into a full Model Session beginning rudiments.

And only if the session was rough should you do the end of session rudiments.

These uses of Model Session are for Levels III, IV and VI.

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

6409C29 SHSpec-41 Gradients

Gradients are vital in all areas of scientology -- and life.  “Gradient” is a concept that has bypassed many scientologists, as evidenced by the difficulty that some of them have in pulling withholds.  If you knew gradients well, you would never have trouble with auditing PCs.  What you are really having trouble with isn’t what you appear to be having trouble with.  The same applies to a PC or a student.  If you are not getting case gain on a PC, it could be a mistake in the gradient.  You can’t get someone over a trouble that he isn’t having.  So if you process his problem and he doesn’t get better, you have him over his head on what he can confront and handle.  What he complains of may not be the real problem at all.  Some processes, like, “What could you confront?”, handle this automatically.  This doesn’t mean that you don’t have to follow a gradient in your address to the case.  You should plan it on a gradient.  Processes are all designed with the idea of starting with a little and moving up to a lot.  The classification program is designed the same way.  As the auditor moves up in class, he can handle more difficult PCs and more of the PC’s case.

You can handle just about anything by tackling the first fundamental thing first and taking on more and more, bit by bit.  In lots of research, people have never gone to the fundamentals.  They have never asked what they were looking for or where to approach it, or observed some obvious basics. For instance, you can examine sound (a gross vibration) with light (a fine vibration), but you can’t examine light with sound.  You can’t look at it with anything but itself.  The only thing that can look at color (light waves) is you.  (The “color wheel” can’t be a circle.  The same color appearing at the other end of the spectrum must be a matter of harmonics.)  This gets into “taste”.  You are the only “thing” that can evaluate color harmonics.

When you don’t know about gradients, you try to build a castle on top of a palace on top of a condition that you call the PC’s case, without going to the fundamentals, knowing what you are looking for or where to approach it, or observing some obvious basics.  This happens because you never walked up the gradient and never saw the fundamentals of th PC’s case.  You only wind up with a notion of the fantastic complexities of existence.  If one’s observations are nonsense, then one’s solutions will be nonsense.  And if you keep trying to observe the totality of the case without observing one little thing about it, you will never find the gradient that leads to observation of the case.  Approach a case with the question, “What is he doing that I can understand?” You won’t be able to remedy the case unless you can find one thing to handle at a time, on the case.  To remedy a case, find one thing you can understand about the case and fix it.  Then find another.  As this proceeds, the case will become simpler.  Don’t try to grasp or handle the whole damned case in two days.

The PC is always at the top of a self-created gradient of complexity that he hasn’t climbed, and he tries to get the auditor there, too.  So you get suckered in on it and try to solve the whole case overnight.  Thus you get a lose.

Now, take overts:  You ask the PC if he has ever committed a crime that could send him to jail if it were discovered.  That is flying to the top of the building, jumping the gradient, and making the auditor feel as though he can’t pull overts.  No.  You pull overts on a gradient.  What gradient would work?  First you have to take into consideration the fact that you are pulling the PC’s overts on a comm line, which may be pretty tenuous to start with. The comm line must be sturdy enough to hold the level of charge, or overt, that we want to have come over on it.  First build up the comm line.  Then start getting some little overts that come across easily, leading to bigger and bigger overts, always pulling overts of a magnitude that the PC can confront.  There are two gradients:

1.  The PC’s willingness to talk to the auditor.

2.  The level of overt that he is willing to tell.  

There are degrees of willingness to talk to the auditor.  You can’t expect a PC who is unwilling to talk to you to tell you some big overt.  Once you have the comm line in, the PC will be able to tell you as much as he himself can confront, which will increase, the more he tells you.

People can generally confront thought more easily than they can confront masses or things.  So on the PE course, stick to definitions, of things like “life” or “body”, not necessarily even definitions of scientology terms.  You can blow tons of charge with nothing but definitions.  Don’t get into heavy bank stuff.  Use a light gradient.  Definitions about thoughts are easier for people to grasp than definitions of masses.  If someone can’t see the data that you are giving him, he can’t apply it, and he flies up to the top floor of the building, adds complexities to the data, and then considers that it is complex and that there is no fundamental there.  So he invents a bunch of nonsense with regard to it, misses it entirely, and never gets any result with it.  So be careful about gradients in training.  The student has to be able to see and apply what you are talking about.

What you want to watch for in a PC is glibness, unreal answers, and no comm lag.  Trying to find a gradient to enter in on with that fellow is fantastic, because he is already stuck in the top floor, but unreal.  The gradient had better be a low, slow approach.  You have to find something about the case that you can grasp, then go ahead.  The time to start looking for something in the case that you can grasp is when the case gets into some difficulty, some lack of advance.  Undercut the case on the basis of ability. If you undercut on the basis of sanity, you may insult the PC.  Find out what the PC can really do and get him to do it better.  When a PC doesn’t advance, find a lower gradient.  Find something about the PC that you can grasp.

The next time you feel queasy about pulling a PC’s overts, look the situation over.  Do you have a comm line there to pull the overts on?  When you do, the next stage is “What could the guy himself confront?” Approach the PC gradiently with questions like, “What have you done?” and “Why wasn’t that an overt?” You have to keep the comm line in while pulling the overts, by pulling them gradiently.  You can [err by] asking the PC for more overt than he himself can confront having done.  As long as you are asking for overts he can confront, the comm line will stay in and your manner won’t even matter. Asking for things that he can’t confront only restimulates him.  It is not a matter of politeness.

When we pick up points, in the gradient of living, that the person has bypassed and gotten stuck on and get him to understand them, we call this clearing.  At those points, the PC had wrong answers or omissions.  When those are cleared up, he can confront and live life easily.  Don’t be so dedicated to the gradient that you fail to observe when someone climbs it very fast, as can happen.

A complicating factor that hasn’t been recognized is people’s prior education or knowledge of some area or activity.  This is generally explained as “natural talent” or a “knack”.

You can get mistaken ideas about the difficulty of auditing or about your ability to audit, when the real problem is only that of approaching the case on the right gradient.  It is trebly important to train students on the right gradient, so that people can win at it and know that they can do it and keep on doing it.  

6410C13 SHSpec-42 Cycles of Action

“The importance [relative value or worth] assigned to a datum is as important as the datum.”  This is evaluation of importances.

Cycles of action are a fundamental of which one must be aware.  There is no particular crisis relating to this topic, except insofar as auditors have been failing to get their questions answered.  We are talking about a cycle, in the sense that a wheel going around and coming back to the same place is a cycle.  The word “cycle” has picked up some odd connotations, as in the modern short story, which tries to give an appearance of no-change by starting and ending in the same place, in the same mood.  In the field of mechanics, a cycle is a total revolution.  In physics and engineering, a cycle is the motion between the end of one wave and the end of the next wave, i.e. the motion during one wavelength.  There is an old definition of “cycle”, [that has more to do with what we are talking about], that is a philosophical concept that doesn’t involve the word “cycle”.  This concept is found in the “Hymn to the Dawn Child” in the Vedas.  It expresses that there is a nothingness from which comes something that grows, matures, decays, and returns to nebulosity and nothingness.

(Johann Templehof went to India and got people from Krishnamurti’s group interested in scientology.  This annoyed Krishnamurti.)

The concept of the cycle of action gives us lots of applicable wisdom.  A cycle of action is a plot of consecutive incident against time.  From R6, we know that time is a commonly-held consideration.  It is a big GPM, with a lot of root-words with an end-word -- “time” -- connected to them.  It is an agreed-upon progress that we are all making and moving forward.  In view of the fact that we are all in present time, since there is nowhere else to be, and that we don’t really move in time, the incident, as it goes forward, appears to be plotted against time.  It is the incident that makes the time. Old humanoids have no time, because little happens and there is no future. Kids’ days are interminable because a lot happens.  You could boil this down to tolerance of incident.  It is one’s tolerance for incidents that give one the impression of time going fast or slow.  When a person has an increase in his tolerance for incident, life seems to slow down.  “If you measure ... time by the amount of incident occurring and then didn’t have any incident, ... you wouldn’t have any time.”  It is not that the more incident, the more time you have, necessarily.  You are dealing with a false commodity, for one thing, and, for another thing, how much time you have depends on the consideration of whether a lot of incident makes a lot of time or little time.  You can practically monitor how much time you have by your consideration of how busy you want to be.  Sometimes there gets to be too much incident, so there gets to be not enough time.  You can manufacture time by deciding that you can confront being busier.  “It’s the consideration of how much incident makes how much time that gives or subtracts time from one’s existence.”  It is how much you decide that you can tolerate or confront.  If you have the consideration that you can be busier or that you have enough time to do something, you can and will.  “You can consider time long or short,” and it will be.

You can also get up to a point where you consider time long or short, without measuring it against incident.  You could get high enough toned to consider that evening was a couple of years away and live a couple of years before evening. [Since you would thus be out of agreement with other beings, it would seem that to do this, you would have to have a considerable tolerance for being alone for long periods of time!]  

The three [actually five] different attitudes towards time, here, are:

1.  Unconscious.

2.  Incident monitors the person’s time.  Here the person is at the total effect of time, and he is habituated to incident monitoring his time.  But it is a certain speed of incident that he is used to having monitor his life.  When the pace changes, he gets a reverse consideration.  The person never affects, changes, or even considers the incidents.  This is homo sapiens.

3.  Person monitors time by willingness to confront incident.  Here, at the state of Release, the person considers one of two things: a.  If I get busy, time goes faster. b.  If I do nothing, time will go faster.  The first of these two considerations is commonest.  Here, the being gets the idea that he can monitor time by his willingness to confront incident.  He can change his own pace by changing incident.

4.  Person just postulates time.  This occurs around Level VI.  Here, the person’s considerations about time alone determine the amount of time he has.  He doesn’t have to depend on exterior incident to consider whether much or little time goes by.  He can make a party last a long time, if he wants to.

5.  Pan-determined time.  At the level of OT, the being might have a pan-determined attitude towards time which would monitor the time of others, as with Sleeping Beauty.

Mesmerism provides a lower-scale example of a similar phenomenon.  With mesmerism, you can put someone into total rapport, where he feels and thinks the feelings and thoughts of the person who has him mesmerized.  The mesmerizer can pinch his own back, and the mesmerized person will leap convulsively and have fingernail marks on his back.  This is a form of physical pan-determinism.  It is quite unethical to do this on some poor sap who has only a shred of self-determinism left, but it is a lower harmonic of the upper-level pan-determinism over time.

To considerations about how much time is passing, you could add other considerations, like the consideration that the actions people are engaged in are happiness-producing actions.  In an area where such a consideration had been made, everyone would think he was doing fine.  You could also have the opposite consideration:  that the actions people are engaged in are misery-producing actions.  In this case, people would feel as though they were committing overts by acting.  This would change people’s considerations of time.  The main culprit in doing this is the newspaper, which puts out this consideration by reporting only bad news.  On a pan-determined basis, but using a very low-grade, finite comm line, the newspapers are spreading the idea of a worthless series of incidents.  This makes time worthless to people.  If a society depends a lot on whether they feel their cycle of action should or shouldn’t proceed, this consideration will do something to time and to the amount of doingness.  

An action is simply a motion through space having a certain speed, especially volitional or intended motion.  It has a bad name, in some quarters, e.g. in literature or psychology.  In civil defense, during crises, any individual in action, during an atomic attack, would be put out of action.  A local authority, who is supposed to act, is not a being.  The idea is: There must be no action (intended motion).  “The prevention of motion is fairly prevalent in mental healing.”  The psychiatrist thinks that someone is cured when he becomes inactive.  A person who has a label and who is active must be restrained.  In mysticism, the wise or enlightened person is supposed to be totally motionless.  People would like to believe this, if they are scared of OT’s.  The “mystical mystic” is a case type.  He is “reasonable”, but he won’t act.

So the idea of time and whether incidents or action should occur gets messed up.  Action has become a dirty word.  You get an insane generality, here: the attitude that “No incidents should take place,” or “Lots of incidents should take place.”  Below this, you get, “It’s all going on and there’s nothing I can do about it.  It’s all happening to me.  It has nothing to do with me.”  This is the sign of a civilization on the decline.  Even the person who says, “It has nothing to do with me,” has to admit that it does have something to do with him when he is driven to it.  If you approach him closely enough with action and you will get a “cornered rat” effect.  Then you get an uncontrolled response like a bar-room brawl.

Action gets a bad connotation because it can produce destruction and pain.  “When people cannot confront pain, ... they are also refusing to confront action, and when [this happens], they cease to confront incident, and they won’t advance a cycle of action, and their sense of time goes [out].”  By telling sick people to stay quiet, doctors are prolonging the time for them. Telling them to have activity of some sort would make time pass more quickly. This has a remarkable effect on healing.

Where more action is demanded of a person than he can confront, pugnacity sets in.  So you get destructive action, which is more action than anyone can confront, as with Hitler, who created too much action.  This gives people the false idea that the cycle of action always ends in decay and death, because this is what it looks like in the physical universe.  It is here that we depart from the cycle of action depicted in “The Hymn of the Dawn Child”.  We are taught this on every hand.  You have so many examples of cycles of action that end in death and disaster, that you get reluctant to complete a cycle of action.  This leads to such foolish ideas as “I mustn’t complete a cycle of action on the PC, because it will injure him.”  This is the worry of an auditor who never completes auditing cycles.  That is what keeps people from arriving.  They are afraid to get to the final point.  Or there could be something wrong with the person’s considerations of “cycle” or “action”. Confrontation of incident may be low.  For instance, some auditors can’t confront too rapidly changing a PC or too slowly changing a PC.  This could lead to overrun, if one can’t confront changing the process, or underrun, if one thinks that completing cycles of action means killing PCs.

Any of these difficulties with the cycle of action means trouble with the auditing cycle, one way or another.  If an auditor’s comm cycle is out, after he is up the line a bit, then this is why.  It is not the complexity of the process.  The auditor has to have his auditing cycle in for sure, by the time he is auditing R6.  

There are:

1.  Considerations of cycles.

2.  Considerations of action.

3.  Considerations of cycles of actions.  

In scientology, a cycle of action is simply from the beginning to the end of an intended action.   [i.e. the start of the cycle of action would be the first appearance of the intention to do something, or of the intention to begin doing it now.] You can also have an other-determined definition of cycle of action:  From the moment Mother looks at me to where she whips me.  The self-determined cycle of action is from the beginning to the end of an intentional action.

The way to take care of trouble with the cycle of action is itsa on its elements.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1964

BPI Remimeo

CLAY TABLE USE

Clay Table auditing is for use by Central Organizations, City Offices and field auditors who have received training in it.

Clay Table is for Levels III and IV. Clay Table Healing is Level III and Clay Table Clearing is Level IV where the auditor is also trained to handle ARC breaks.

Central Orgs are to use only on HGC pcs or in the stuff co-audit but may permit use by an auditor only where that auditor has been fully checked out on its HCO Bulletins and is supervised.

Clay Table public use or use on public co-audits or HAS courses will bring about casualties.

These Clay Table processes are extremely powerful and therefore very restimulative. To give lectures on them to uninformed persons may have repercussions in their cases.

Clay Table is also deceptively simple. It appears so easy to read about that one is likely to miss. It’s simple but only if you consider driving between two ravines at a hundred miles an hour is simple.

It looks easy until you run off the road by failing to locate the steering wheel before you drive.

A Central Organization may teach Classification Courses at Level III for Clay Table Healing as soon as it has Instructors trained in it at Saint Hill. It may teach Classification Courses at Level IV in Clay Table Clearing to students who took the Class III Course.

Staffs may be trained and checked out in Clay Table work but preferably by Saint Hill graduates.

There is no penalty attached to misusing Clay Table work except the penalty of coping then with a messed up process and messed up pcs.

Used right Clay Table is the fastest thing we ever had. But Clay Table Auditing isn’t just fooling about with Clay. It’s simple, powerful technology and requires expert usage to produce results and protect pcs.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1964
Remimeo
Sthil Students

CLAY TABLE DATA

The only real error auditors are making on Clay Table work is not getting their auditing question answered at times.

When a pc answers, in reply to the question asking for what he wants to improve, “To be clear” and this is then pursued in the session, serious trouble occurs. Why?

“What do you want to improve?” is not answered by “To be clear.” It would be answered by “My sanity.” It would not be answered by “My aberrations” (since nobody wants his aberrations to improve).

If your pc is not trained into being in session you of course don’t get answers to your questions.

What auditor has recently (as you should to all new pcs particularly) explained what was expected in the session? “I am going to ask you something, then you are going to answer it, then I will acknowledge, then I will ask again” etc. In other words what auditor has recently explained to a new pc the auditing cycle?

Well, if he hasn’t on a new pc an auditor can’t control anything that goes wrong in the session as there’s no session.

Clay Table, like all other auditing, has to have an auditing cycle of asking or telling the pc, getting that exact question answered or command complied with, acknowledging it and so forth.

When this is omitted particularly on Clay Table work, disaster follows faster than in other types of processes as Clay Table bites deep.

So

1. 	Get your pc trained into what the auditing cycle is and

2. 	Get the question or command that was asked or given answered.

Pcs can say whatever else they please. But they must answer the auditing question or no auditing occurs.

More than any other sin, this one is bedeviling Clay Table work and slowing results and every upset on Clay Table so far has been traced to this.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1964
Issue II

Remimeo 
Franchise
ALL LEVELS
GETTING THE PC SESSIONABLE

When you start to audit new pcs the liabilities are these:

1. 	If you do not show him what auditing is, he does not know what is expected of him. Thus he is not only not in session but in mystery.

2. 	If you do not indoctrinate him into what he is supposed to do when the auditor gives him a question or command, he often does not answer the question or comply with the command and only then can things go wrong in the session.

3. 	If the pc is not in the auditor’s control and if anything goes wrong, then the auditor can do nothing about it as he does not have any session or control of the pc.

COVERT AUDITING

Some, particularly HAS students, are very remiss in this and “covertly audit”.

In “talking” to someone they also seek to audit that person “without the person knowing anything about it”.

This of course is nonsense since auditing results are best achieved in a session and a session depends upon a self-determined agreement to be audited.

You can achieve changes in a person with covert auditing—I won’t say you can’t since I have done so. But it is uncertain and not very popular.

You have to audit without agreement when the pc is unconscious and can’t respond.

But to make it a common practice when it is really used only in emergency (as in unconsciousness or when you have no time) would be foolish.

Further, using Scientology to handle situations in life is a whole subject in itself and it isn’t auditing. (Example: Person angry, a Scientologist locates and indicates the by-passed charge. Example: On a raving psychotic, the Scientologist arranges for the person to have a rest away from his ordinary environment and associates and forbids damaging “treatments”. Example: Somebody seems to have lots of problems so the Scientologist teaches him what a problem is. Example: By observing the anxiousness of a person to receive motivators the Scientologist estimates the degree of overts the person has committed. Example: One sees a difficulty in planning is not getting any better so he decides there must be a lie in the plan and locates it at which time a good plan can emerge.)

There are countless ways to use the philosophy of Scientology in direct application to life. And even hopeless physical conditions respond to just understanding more about life. For instance there are many cases on record of a bedridden person reading no more than Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science and becoming well and active.
So one doesn’t have to “covertly audit” if any communication is possible. One can teach, advise, orient someone in existence, applying the truths and knowledge of Scientology.

The point is, when auditing is begun it is best done by agreement to be audited and is most successful when the preclear understands what he is supposed to do in response to auditor actions, and is only disastrous when there is not enough control in the session to set things right if they start to go wrong.

Any auditor who just sits and lets a pc ramble on and on with no regard to the subject being handled, even in Itsa, is very foolish, has no session and is wasting time.

The wrong thing to do is chop the pc up and cut his comm because he is so far adrift.

The right thing to do is to prevent it before it happens by not auditing preclears who have not agreed to be audited or who have no faintest idea of what’s expected of them.

In the hands of an unskilled “auditor” I have seen a preclear, who was running a psycho-analytic type session, giving all the expected psycho-analytic symptoms and responses. And getting nowhere.

There are two ways it could have been handled—one is to have explained this wasn’t psycho-analysis and then explained the auditing cycle. The other would have been to run O/W on the analysis the pc had had or even do a by-passed charge assessment on the analysis. Probably both would be necessary if mere information about how auditing was done did not care for the condition.

One of the rules of auditing is never to let any part of any question or command be agreed upon once and never repeated. Example: The auditor tells the pc, “When I say ‘her’ in this command, I mean your mother. Now what have you done to her?” The pc is always having to think back to this agreement to answer the command.

Educating a pc is not the same thing. Here one is knocking out past response patterns, as in social actions or some earlier form of treatment. One is in effect cancelling out earlier habits of response in order to get auditing to occur. Once that is done one does not of course have to do it again and what the pc says in a session is what the pc says. Sometimes he wanders all about before he answers the question. But the auditor in any case must get his question answered or the command complied with.

So auditing in general is a clean-cut agreement to be audited, a session is conducted with an auditing cycle, no matter how long or short that cycle may be.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1964
Issue III
Remimeo
Sthil Students
Franchise
CLEARING
WHY IT WORKS
HOW IT IS NECESSARY

The wrap-up of Level VI this last year brought about a full explanation of why clearing works at lower levels. And it also brought about why some could not be run at once on R6.

The reasons are quite simple.

The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs).

Life has pulled these out of position and thrust the pc into the mass.

When you find what lock words have been tied into the GPMs in this or even an earlier lifetime and key them out (destimulate them) (untie them from the main mass) the GPMs sink back into proper alignment and cease being effective.

This makes a Key-Out Clear.

This condition is valuable because the GPMs are now confrontable one by one (not dozens by dozens) and Routine 6 can be run easily on the preclear.

Once Routine 6 auditing has begun one can only handle the derangements of masses by List 6 By-Passed Charge Auditing by Lists or, in an ARC Break, by using List 6 as an ARC Break Assessment.

(If you seek to return to Clay Table Clearing after beginning R6, you get only locks on the Item the pc has been left in and cause only upset. So you never return a pc to Clay Table Clearing once he has begun R6. Moral, don’t begin R6 too soon. Clear first.)

That the state of Clear is transient and impermanent does not make it less worth while. In itself it is of enormous mental value and the full results never fade—only some of the bloom. That’s because the main bank is brought back into restimulation by Life or the pc’s overts, etc.

It is easiest to run R6 on pcs who have at some time or another been cleared. It is also possible to run R6 immediately on some rare pcs because they are just about clear anyway. It is risky to attempt R6 on the average pc who has not been cleared. Some pcs can’t be audited at all on R6 until they are cleared.

That is because they have too many lock words (words not in the GPMs but close in meaning) keeping the large chunks of the reactive mind in present time. When these lock words are handled by being found and understood the reactive mind drops out of restimulation and one can then run it out in an orderly fashion, Item by Item and GPM by GPM.

Those are the mechanics of the reactive bank itself, the real use and value of clearing in auditing, and the conditions necessary for the successful handling of Routine 6.

From the first moment he starts being audited, the pc is heading first for orientation in his environment (fewer PTPs and conflicts with others around him), second for release (from the feeling he will only get worse and can’t progress—done by giving him small wins), third by getting rid of his physical problems, fourth by clearing away the locks on the reactive bank and fifth and sixth by running out the reactive bank itself. (Note: Fifth is mentioned as it is also encountered in the form of whole track, not always necessary to handle.)

Once the reactive mind is vanquished, the pc is again capable of his full potential as a being.

If you try to short-cut it you get failed cases.

So that’s the why of levels and their design and even if unpopular they are the necessary steps across the bridge.

If somebody comes along and says it can be done with a needle and syringe or whirling until one is dazed or sitting on a mountain top gazing at his navel, he has a perfect right to say it. But the road out, whatever the process followed, must overcome the obstacles listed above or it is no road but a trap.

My responsibility has been to find the way, to develop the processes by which it could be walked safely and to communicate what I know about it to the best of my ability even across barriers erected to communication and against the wishes of those who place value in slaves.

There could have been a thousand other ways, a million variations, a billion reasons why one should not go. But if there are other ways, Man has not found them and indeed has only laid more difficulties by his past efforts.

That is the way.

It can be travelled. Truth is not always popular. That is why there is so little truth for men are commonly frightened things. One can’t rush from nowhere to the stars. But there is a way.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6410C20 SHSpec-43 Levels -- The Reasons for Them

LRH had a cognition:  Khrushchev was overthrown because Russia went into a “compulsive duplication of Great Britain and the U.S. and tried to hold an election.”

The term “raw meat” applies to:

1.  Lack of processing.

2.  The PC’s opinion of what he is.

Someone who has actually started on R6 must not be returned to clearing or getting definitions audited, etc.  He is sitting in an item and could pick up some other item out of sequence -- some end-word that is out of sequence. This could give him nasty somatics.

So there are solid technical reasons why PCs progress up the levels.  The original reason for levels was to stretch auditors out to what they were capable of.  It became obvious that PCs didn’t gain well when run above their level, despite their eagerness to be run on R6.

The reason why John Campbell parted company with LRH was his devotion to the machine.  He thought the ideal civilization was machines tending machines.  People who consider that they can formulate infallible plans for a Utopia don’t think that people should have power of choice, since it disrupts the utopian plans.  But the ideal plan has hardly been found, on the political front, as one can see in any newspaper.  Furthermore, since absolutes are unobtainable, the ideal state will never be achieved.  Beings are not all alike, so who could judge when perfection had been attained? You would never get complete agreement.  Man is capable of his own judgment.  This alone keeps the absolute from being attained.  For instance, what is the “perfect” piece of music?

All the way down the line, the individual never completely loses his individuality.  Integrity to himself is the last resort of a thetan.  The individual can only be pushed so far.  Richmond Kelly Turner commanded the USS Astoria cruiser, in World War II.  He was a Captain Bligh-type guy.  Very grim.  LRH knew him.  [Maybe the source of Mr. Roberts.] Nothing on the Astoria worked.  The crew was on a “white mutiny”, in which the crew acts only under direct orders, takes no initiative, and executes nothing that is needed unless directly ordered to do exactly that.  That was their way of getting even.  “A thetan never gives up.”  Russia is one big white mutiny.  It is not that there is anything wrong with having rules and having people comply with them.  What is wrong is using duress continually to deny people any judgment or initiative with regard to the rules.  

The gradient of ability, relative to rules, is:

1.  Doesn’t obey rules because he doesn’t know them.

2.  Total adherence to rules, based on understanding of them.

3.  Varying the rules, based on a higher understanding.  

What gets interesting and can get troublesome, is when you follow the rules with variations.  If you are trying to learn some subject, follow a plan, or something.  There are two conditions that are a variation from the “must do it”:

1.  Total ignorance and rebellion, based on aberration.

2.  Skill and judgment enough to know which rules can be varied and how.  

This latter condition is reached when you know the game all the way around. The amateur tries to find the perfect instrument to do it.  The pro knows how to make use of what he’s got and the rules.  In order to vary the rules successfully, you have to know the rules cold.  Otherwise you will fail, because you are operating out of ignorance and rebellion.  [LRH tells an anecdote about an old Chinese carpenter who resists using a guard on his band saw.  He knows what he is doing.] You’ve got to earn the right to vary the rules, in life or in auditing.

In confronting variation from the rules, the manager, supervisor, or whoever, has to be able to differentiate between the two sources of variation: ignorance or familiarity.  If he doesn’t, “judgment is denied the individual [who could exercise it],” and the supervisor gets into trouble.  Are you dealing with ignorance or virtuosity?  You can enforce the rule against the person who varies it for the first reason, with impunity, because life is assisting you by punishing stupidity and ignorance anyway.  But don’t shoot the second type of variation down.  This person has earned the right to vary the rule.

Whether the person knows his business or not can be seen from his results.  If he is consistently getting results and protests the rules, we can see that he is a virtuoso.  If he is consistently unable to get results, he needs more rules, not less, since his departure from the rules doesn’t get good results.  The only way you will progress is over his dead body.  But he never dies, so you can’t win using force and duress against ignorance.  You must educate.  On the other hand, if you combat virtuosity instead of ignorance, and you create leaders for a revolution that will unseat you.

The people who have been exported to this planet all fall into two and only two classes:

1.  Rebellious geniuses.

2.  Stupid criminals.  

There is no in-between.  The latter rebel destructively and stupidly; the former rebel intelligently.  They give trouble to the stupid state, which thinks that it has the perfect answer.  One gives reactive trouble, and the other gives intelligent, self-determined trouble.  You had better recognize the difference between the two.  When you try to handle self-determined, intelligent trouble with force, this is handling thought with mass, and it doesn’t handle well, since power of choice is the main power the person has. So use duress on the former, but never on the latter.  All protest is not the former, exclusively.  Our question in scientology is, “Why should some people stay debased, stupid, and protesting?”  

Becoming an OT has to do with power of choice and power of observation. Therefore, no wave of a magic wand will produce an OT, since it would just be another effect on the person.  Buddha tried to wave a magic wand and produces slaves -- a horrible example of a postulate gone wrong.  The Asia Minor OT [J] who turned leaves into loaves and fishes, or whatever, just impressed everyone to the point that they are still overwhumped.  This is probably not what he intended.

The unpopularity of scientology levels comes from an unfamiliarity with the road to be walked.  You’ve got to get the guy to where he can talk to an auditor enough and tolerate control enough and be keyed out enough from the mass that he is sitting in, and under enough discipline to confront the objects in the bank necessary to run out to resolve his case.  That may take quite awhile.  The easiest thing to do is to unburden the case by getting locks off.  You do this by:

1.  Handling the auditing environment.  First you unburden the session.  Then get the PC educated into what he is supposed to do and willing  to talk to the auditor.  You have to explain this to him and show him  the auditing comm cycle.  Get what auditing is over to the PC.  This  is getting the PC “sessionable”.   [LRH invents the term “sessionable”.]  

2.  Handling the between-sessions environment.   a. Preparation.  Handle PTP’s at first just by finding out what they are, before actually auditing them.  We can ask the PC what the parts of his environment are [Cf. expanded   dianetics].  This alone helps him to sort out his problems.  It   gives some gain.  Get the PC to straighten out his environment so he is not sitting in his office with his house right outside the window, while he is in the auditing room.  This is not   auditing the environment.  It is just getting the PC to identify its parts.  At this point, you don’t want his problems   with his job.  You just want his job named as a part of his environment.  You are getting him sessionable, which might take several sessions.   b. Auditing.  Then you ask the PC for problems with the parts of the environment mentioned above.  Find one that his attention is stuck on.  Ask him what communication he hasn’t completed to those terminals.  You handle problems very lightly, but wind up with the period between sessions being clean enough so that it doesn’t keep coming up at the start of each new session.   Again, this may take several sessions.  

3.  Beginning, approach to the bank.  Now we are going into the PC’s past  and future.  In (1) and (2), above, we were broadening the perimeters  of the PC.  We continue this now by beginning to handle the PC’s past  and future, helping him to orient himself better.  We could run,  “Give me something that happened in the past, with date and place.”  This does the same for the PC’s past environment that you have done  for his present environment.  At what is now Level I, you begin ARC straightwire: orienting the PC to his past -- repetitive processes.  If the PC gets to this point, he can be audited easily.  

4.  Clay table healing.  Using this, you can straighten out the concern that the PC has about the body.  

5.  On up the levels.  In completing the levels, you are handling locks  on GPM’s, so they get all straightened out, ready for R6.  Someone  who hasn’t been brought up through the levels isn’t ready for R6 and will get into trouble.  

6410C27 SHSpec-44 The Failed Case

The Book of Case Remedies handles the failed case.  Look up the symptoms and handle as directed.  But there is one case that will always be a failed case.  The reason lies not with the auditor, scientology, or the tech.

In 1954, LRH researched people who had turned against dianetics and scientology to find the common denominator.  He found about twenty-one people who had been in dianetics and scientology but had worked against it and caused a lot of trouble.  Seventeen of the twenty-one had criminal records.  Also, they had had auditing but had gotten no case change.  There might have been twenty-one for twenty-one, but LRH got tired of looking after seventeen. Recently, LRH found out the other factor in the totally failed case:  “The totally failed case commits more overts between sessions [in PT] than can be picked up in a session.”  He is the “continuous PT overts” case.  He doesn’t as-is things well.  He takes a long time to get at anything.  He takes no responsibility for anything.  He is hard to get in comm with.  Etc.  In Freudian terms, he is the “detached case” [Dissociative Reaction? Schizoid personality?] He admits to fantastic crimes, but doesn’t really consider he did them.  He is really saying, “Society forced me to commit ... ,” or “My hand stole the watch ... ,” etc.  He says, “I picked up the pocket book,” but means “My hand picked up the pocket book.”

Such a case can’t as-is the overt because there is a lie in his statement of it.  It is incomplete.  He says, “My hand stole the watch .”  but the correct statement is, “I saw the watch and stole it with my hand.”  He has put an alter-is on the line.  He didn’t do it.  It “happened”.

Then there is the guy who is putting up a social front and never admits anything he has done, because he doesn’t want to look bad to the auditor. This is partly a matter of getting in a good comm line.  You can get real overts off the case by asking for horrendously exaggerated overts, [like, “Have you murdered any little children lately?”].  It is a trick.  For another gradient, you can ask, “What are you willing to talk to me about?”

(You can audit all the sexual overts off the case that you like, without restimulating GPM’s, because “sex” is not in the GPM’s or end-words as such, though it forms locks on GPM end-words and root-words.  Sex is a humanoid activity, and the GPM words don’t necessarily refer to humanoid activities.)  

But the real failed case commits so many overts in PT you don’t have time in session to get them all off.  The failed case is continually committing real PT overts.  He is so irresponsible that the overts don’t react on the meter, because they are just not potentially real to him.

The source of small reads in R6 is running the PC where he isn’t, which means leaving BPC where he is.  If he is getting no reads on any list you are using to correct this situation, either the items on the lists are unreal, because he’s got no reality on GPM’s, being totally uneducated, or he’s got it all suppressed.

If you are running a prepcheck on a PC, and he runs out of answers on a button, e.g.”  suppress”, don’t push him on that button just because you are getting TA on it.  You will just restimulate the rest of the buttons!  TA action, in a prepcheck, is on the process [i.e. the whole prepcheck], not on the button you happen to be running at the moment.  If the prepcheck is not flat when you reach the end of the buttons, go through it again.  “I know of no auditing action where a PC who has been getting proper TA action in the session, who says, ‘I don’t have any more answers to it,’ has ever had any further answers to it.”  There are indicators in the physical appearance and meter behavior of the PC who is running O/W, that there are more answers than he is willing to give.  Only in this case do you press the question home. This is not applicable to PTP’s.  Withheld PTP’s won’t hurt the PC.  They will only be withheld if they are connected to an overt, and you will get that on O/W buttons.  So watch out for overrun.

The slowest rate of change, in a PC, is at the start of the case.  The case that is winning accelerates in rate of change, as you audit it up the line.  Cognitions of a given magnitude come faster.  Comm lag decreases.  So you have to be careful not to overrun the PC.  The failed case, however, doesn’t change at all.  You can check rate of change of a case by checking to see how many hours it takes for a person to have a fundamental cog of some kind.  At first, perhaps, it takes 25 hours.  Later, perhaps, it only takes an hour.  Then you get the person who audits almost by inspection.  The increased rate of cognition goes along with a decrease in the comm lag.  Another thing you will notice is the PC’s physical posture and mannerisms.  If there is no change in these over time, if the PC keeps returning to a posture or mannerism, then he is not experiencing a rate of change of progress.  Another bad indicator in this respect is when a non-optimum condition persists.  When you see that, you know that the case needs remedying.  The other bad indicators would be there, too.  As an auditing supervisor, you should expect to see some change within a few days.

One way to spot what overts the failed case is committing between sessions is to listen for what he complains of in others.  The way you would handle the failed case would be to extend your zone of influence to include everywhere the case goes between sessions, for long enough to prevent the continuous overts, long enough to pull the PC out of it.  This would be a very thoroughgoing solution and change, but it is about all you could do.  You do what you can.  There is no fast process to undercut the case, either.  The furthest south process you could use to benefit the case would be justifications.  But you still have to get a comm line established first.  

Commoner than the continuous PT overt case is the person who continually committed overts in the past and has this in restimulation.  The case that has lots of past overts but isn’t doing them in PT is easier to handle.  The proper approach to this case is:

1.  Get in comm with the PC.

2.  Get more and more overts, on a gentle gradient.  If the case keeps getting off the same overt, it has become a problem, as far as the mechanics of it go.  A problem is postulate-counter-postulate. Therefore it floats in time.  This is a problem about the overt.  It wasn’t an overt, in his view.  It was justified, so, in this situation, you can use:

1.  “What have you done?”

2.  “How have you justified it?”    or 

3.  “How wasn’t that an overt?”  

This is not a repetitive process.  Ask, “What have you done that was a harmful act?”, and really get an answer that both of you agree was a real overt.  This is not a repetitive question.  It is one question that might take 25 hours of arguing back and forth about “What is an overt?”, etc. -- chitter-chat -- to get answered.  When you’ve got it, then ask, “How was that not an overt?”, and keep going on that one for as long as it takes to really get that answered. You want to get “what he really thought was unharmful about it....  Why he really had to do it.”  At the end of this process, he will really cog.  Don’t run these two questions as a repetitive process.  It can take a long time to get them answered.  You are asking the questions right into the guts of aberration.  You are not going up on it on some gradient, hoping some accident will occur.  You are going right down the center of the road, after something that answered that question.

An unchanging condition comes from a postulate-counter-postulate.  So “an overt which created ... or ... sought to solve an obsessive problem, hangs in time and becomes both an overt act and a PTP.” Most overts are committed as solutions.  This gives you another inroad to the case that keeps committing PT overts.  Handle the overt as a PTP that the PC is trying to solve.  You could find out, “What PTP are you trying to solve with overts?” Or, “What have you done recently that was pretty anti-social?”, then “What problem were you trying to solve by doing that?” It would be an odd-ball problem.  The trouble with such a case is that you are likely only to get a bunch of motivators.

Repetitive questions don’t work if the question you ask the PC or his answer to it isn’t real to him.  The fact that the PC is out of comm with you makes finding the PTP that the PC’s overt is intended to solve uncertain of result.  However, on ordinary cases, it works very well to find what PTP the guy is trying to solve with his overts, and doing so blows lots of overts into view that the PC might never otherwise have suspected.  Not all overts are efforts to solve problems.  Some are accidental; some are out of misunderstoods.  Getting the justifications off unlocks the problem aspect, takes a lot of locks off, etc.  The PC will cognite on the problem, and the effect can sometimes be magical.

None of the above will work with a truly failed case type, although it may sometimes nudge such a case.  The only thing you can do with the failed case is to restrain him somehow from committing overts, long enough to get him audited, long enough so that he will quit committing the continuous PT overts.  

The Book of 
CASE REMEDIES

A MANUAL COVERING 
PRECLEAR DIFFICULTIES 
AND THEIR REMEDIES

by
L. RON HUBBARD
 
HOW TO USE THIS BOOK

This is a professional text, a part of the Clearing Series.  It does not give the processes on which cases should be run to achieve higher levels. It gives the processes you have to use when the case doesn’t run on standard processes.

To use this book properly, one does not start or run cases with the Remedies given. One uses the Table of Remedies, contained herein, when the case has not run at all or, momentarily or consistently, does not advance on general processes.

When the case won’t run, whether for a session or for many sessions, look the preclear up in the Table of Remedies and use the prescribed action only long enough to get the preclear running again. Then return to the regular processes for the level.

PREFACE FOR THIS EDITION

The first edition in 1964 of L. Ron Hubbard’s THE BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES gave auditors necessary points of technology for the last push to the great Releasing and Clearing successes that followed.

Only a year later Release Grade and Clearing technology was completed by L. Ron Hubbard and students were already started on the big one itself -- the Clearing Course.

In one and a half years from the first Clear, we had close to seven hundred more Clears.

There is not the slightest question about any part of the route. People from everywhere and all sorts of backgrounds are taking their steps easily. The Clearing Course, and the training and Release Grades leading smoothly to it, are all utterly provenly successful. Any new list of Clears as of any date has to be revised upward fast as new graduates finish the Clearing Course, growing and doubling in numbers.

And to graduate from that course one has attained the state which is philosophy’s win after thousands of years.

There were no Clears before, ever.

THE BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES becomes, with Ron’s HCO Bulletins of 9 November 1967 and 13 January 1968, a new book and a new technical breakthrough. This expanded edition contains all the material of 1964. It also releases new technology resulting from upper level discoveries by L. Ron Hubbard.

His text is thus expanded but is not otherwise changed in this edition.

Remember that except for the new materials added in this edition, it was written during the last phases of total Clearing research. Release and Clear were found, in completed Clearing technology and result, to be higher states than at any earlier time described.

When Ron says Clear in this book he is talking about what is now known to be high Release Levels.

O.T., or Operating Thetan, has its levels, all yet above Clear, and its proper Courses, at the Advanced Organization.  Only a Clear can take them or could handle one.

THE EDITORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1	1
THE TRADITION OF SCIENTOLOGY	1
CHAPTER 2	5
HANDLING THE PRECLEAR	5
CHAPTER 3	6
KEEP THE PC GETTING AUDITED	6
CHAPTER 4	9
THE PTP, OVERT AND ARC BREAK	9
CHAPTER 5	10
THE PC THAT QUITS	10
REVISION OF REMEDY A, REMEDY B, AND S AND Ds	11
S & Ds	14
REMEDY B -- ENVIRONMENT	15
PTS HANDLING	16
CHAPTER 6	19
TABLE OF REMEDIES	19
CHAPTER 7	22
SUPERVISOR’S REMEDIES	22
CHAPTER 8	27
TECHNICAL NOTES	27
CHAPTER 9	28
ENVOY	28
INDEX TO REMEDIES	30

CHAPTER 1

THE TRADITION OF SCIENTOLOGY

Once upon a time preclears were full of mysteries and unknowns. Once, to resolve a case, it was necessary to have a crystal ball, a clean record with the Archangel Michael and a lot of luck.

Fourteen active years and tens of thousands of pc’s (preclears) have changed all that.

During this past summer, when I had completed the Routine 6 (pc’s own goals) research, I was able to review all the levels and stages a pc or an auditor (a Scientology practitioner) has to go through.

What emerged, in getting this material into understandable form, was that people had, in general, confused Clearing and Operating Thetans (O.T.’s).

CLEARING

Many had tried to deify Clears and had rarely understood “O.T.”

Clears and clearing are actually fully explained in the first published article on Dianetics (Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science), and in Book One (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health). Clear is the name of a button on an adding machine. When you push it, all the hidden answers in the machine clear and the machine can be used for a proper computation. So long as the button is not pressed, the machine adds all old answers to all new efforts to compute, and wrong answers result.

People who have old, fixed answers reacting when they try to think, get wrong answers when they try to solve their current problems. Such old answers are not cleared. Rollo is still solving the tantrums of his mother who has been dead for years. Marybelle is still running away from the tramp who attacked her when she was 10 years old. So Rollo stays home as the solution to the women of the world. And Marybelle runs madly about as a solution to all the uncouth men she sees. Their friends think they’re a bit odd. Their doctors prescribe pills. And we clear the old senseless answers which won’t let them get more sensible answers.  As adding machines, or any kind of calculator, they would be junked. They give wrong answers to life because they already have a hidden answer in their cog wheels.

They are not cleared.

Well, really that’s all a clear is.  Clears are beings who have been cleared of wrong answers or useless answers which keep them from living or thinking.

THE STATE OF CLEAR

Now the state of being cleared was what confused the issue.  People wanted to know what they’d be like if they were cleared. A good question. Data accumulated, but not as fast as the questions. The people, cleared, would be better, feel better, act better, be more moral, etc. All that is a matter of record.

But the craving for an Absolute caused everyone to put the state called “O.T.” in place of the condition of “being cleared”. “Absolutes,” in our axioms, “are unobtainable.”

THE STATE OF OPERATING THETAN

Operating Thetan is a state of beingness. It is a being “at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life.” Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and Thetan is the Greek letter Theta (theta), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit”, to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. It is also “thetan” or “theta to the nth degree”, meaning unlimited or vast.

THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT

In brief, a Thetan is an individual spirit or soul or life unit or fifty other things all adding up to the traditional concept of man’s spiritual nature or beingness. More radical, recent thought departed into adventurous by-paths and announced, contrary to more conservative philosophy and usual acceptance, that Man was an animal made up of a brain and bones and possessing no soul. This may have made the originators of this quaint Russo-German school feel less guilty for what they did to men in wars and science. But it takes more than a Marxist psychologist to change every man’s basic philosophy forever; and 99.99% of Earth’s people, at least, still believe they have souls or are souls. Only the philosophically illiterate and the agitators for the recent, radical schools of psychology suppose they have made inroads in man’s belief that he has or is a soul. Only those who seek to enslave Man would try to “sell” the idea of a “soulless man”.

The rest of us, and we comprise, remember, 99.99% of the population of the planet, still hold to the concept that we are spirits or spiritual beings and that we go elsewhere when we “die”.

Only men who have quite a thirst for revenge would want others to totally die.

FOLLOWING TRADITION

Remaining with more traditional philosophy and working with what seemed more reasonable, I was able to demonstrate in 1952 the actual existence of this thing called a spirit (the experiments of “Exteriorization”). But wishing to avoid “spiritualism” or even “soul”, because both had such bulky histories as words, I coined the word thetan, derived as above; and Scientologists ever since have been quite happy with it.

I should have called it the more traditional Greek word “psyche”, perhaps; but at that time I saw no virtue in being confused with “psychologists” who explain in their own texts that they don’t know what their own name means, as they don’t know what a “psyche” is and don’t believe there is one, which rather upsets their title to the word they use for themselves.

But anyway, for better or worse, I used “thetan”.

THE ULTIMATE STATE

It soon became quite visible that the spiritual condition could be improved, and an ultimate attainment of “cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life” was possible.

Now this was the ultimate state. Operating Thetan: A theoretically attainable transcendence over death and the travails of mortal existence. It was a dream. A bold dream.  But not a new dream. Like everything else we have in Scientology, it is based on traditional philosophy. The thinking then of every great civilization up to this century, not only would have grasped the meaning of this, but were themselves seeking to attain it. Name a great name in historical philosophy. All right. He was trying to attain O.T. by means of exploration of Life, Thought, Man or the Reason of Things.
Only in the last few decades has the dream been challenged by a radical few. That they teach in universities is only a comment that today’s universities aren’t the halls of enlightenment they were. Ah well, they can all be improved.  And it would take more than these rebellious few to smash one of Man’s great dreams -- the dream of freedom of spirit, the dream of freedom of self, the dream of ascending above base matter.

CLEAR DIFFERS FROM O.T.

So O.T. was the state of beingness.

Clear was a gradient condition. (A gradual bettering.)

During studies of the past year, all this disentangied and became understood, and for the first time was easy to express.

Clear is not a gradient up to O.T. Clear is a gradient up to Homo Novis only. Homo (Man) Novis (new). This is a desirable improvement. Very desirable for anyone.

An entirely new thing has to be done to make an Operating Thetan.

But one had to know how to make one to find out about one. And Routine 6, the process that makes an O.T., starts, really, at Homo Novis. Certainly Routine 6 runs best on a Homo Novis. The proof is that those Scientologists who have been pretty well cleared don’t have any trouble at all with Routine 6; and those who haven’t been cleared, and particularly those who have had few gains in processing, have a pretty awful time of it with Routine 6. They get a bit along with it, but it’s like watching a pygmy wrestle with an elephant.

Thus, although we have Routine 6, my task has been to bring preclears up to clear and then to send them onward to O.T.

THE LEVELS TO O.T.

This is done -- and very doable it is -- by moving the being up to a few basic wins with ordinary processing (up to Level III) and then moving the preclear up to clear (Level IV) and then going for O.T., which is Level VI (V being skipped, but left in place because it contains a known type of technology, not needed, but necessary to know the existence of).  To stretch a point, one is really clearing from Level I to Level IV; but clearing, now that I’ve had a chance to refine it, is itself a process that takes skill and ability both to run and receive. And one has to get the being up to doing that.  So a being who can do that is a “Release”, which reaches up to Level II.

These stages, as expressed in “Levels”, are all quite real and are getting very precise (see Chart of Gradients).    Fourteen years of work developed a lot of know-how. And it all fell into its rightful place when one got to where one could stand high and inspect the ground below. One needed Routine 6 and the practical attainability of O.T to see where one was with the fellow who just walked in off the street.  How did one get such a fellow from the coal pit to the mountain top? That was the problem.

OPERATING THETAN

(Cause over Matter, Energy, Space, Time, Form and Life)

THETA CLEAR
(Not now used, as it is only a partial condition of O.T.  Contains History of Man, Implants, Past Lives, Whole Track Engrams, Para-Scientology data. Processes not now in active use)

CLEAR

(Does not react with wrong answers to human problems)

HEALTHY

(Susceptibility to illness and accident reduced)

SELF-DETERMINED

(Higher activity level. Less an effect of the environment)

RELEASE

(One who can get better and knows he has benefited and knows he won’t get worse)

APPRENTICE SCIENTOLOGIST

(One who knows how io know.  how to study, what life is about)

HOMO SAPIENS

Gradients of Various States

CHAPTER 2

HANDLING THE PRECLEAR

At the lowest place on the route up, one finds the roughest auditing conditions.

There is no heroic effort that will produce an instantaneous and permanent gain. One can produce a fast gain that is so fast it unstabilizes the pc. It’s all too sudden and new and the pc can’t take it so quick. Witness the fate of a pc who is suddenly “exteriorized”. “Deprived” of a body even for a few minutes in auditing, no matter how much better he feels for those few minutes, the change is too quick, You can exteriorize any pc. That’s sudden and fast and impermanent.  So it’s a research tool, not an auditing procedure.

You possibly could clear somebody by some lightning fast means, but down he’d come again. Why? Because you haven’t cleared enough buttons, that’s all. You left too many wrong answers on the case for the case to be right in a new state.

THE SECRET OF PRECLEAR GAINS

The secret of handling the preclear is getting the pc wins he or she can have in the world he or she is living in, and getting more and more such wins, until new gains are acceptable and therefore stable. After that, you can “go for broke” in Clearing.

And when you have cleared the pc, until he can stand unaided and get right answers in the existence he or she is living in, you can again go for broke with Routine 6.

And you eventually have O.T.

BE COMFORTABLE

I speak now from a very well substantiated technical height which it took all the fourteen years since Book One to climb.

And I find it can be done rather easily, if it is done from step to upward step and not subjected to an impatient hit or miss scramble. In scrambling one only gets bruised on the rocks.

This is not to say it takes a long time. It takes rather a steady and orderly time, not flying before one can walk, so to speak, and being able to look up without getting dizzy and to look down without being overcome with the grandeur of one’s own climb.

Be comfortable about it is the byword.

People enroute at a comfortable rate are actually unaware of gains! They just take them for granted.

THE AUDITOR’S TASK

The auditor’s task in handling the preclear’s case is to guide the pc upward and again upward to comfortable, acceptable wins, which the pc can have and which, therefore, will be permanent.

CHAPTER 3

KEEP THE PC GETTING AUDITED

In order to help anyone, much less make clears and O.T.’s, it is necessary to keep the pc getting auditing.

That sounds rather easy at first glance with all the dazzling goals that can be set for him or her. But in actual fact this is the only place auditors fall down.

Obviously you can’t clear anybody, regardless of the techniques you have, if the preclear won’t keep on getting auditing.

Give an auditor a preclear to audit and auditors do very well indeed. But when the pc blows, or just doesn’t turn up any more, what then? That’s the end of clearing, isn’t it?

THE BASIC PROBLEM

So the basic problem of making clears and O.T’s is not getting preclears to have auditing. That’s easy, really. It’s getting preclears to KEEP ON getting auditing. And there is where auditors, yes and Case Supervisors, fall down.

THE PRECLEAR MUST GET WINS

There are several reasons why it is hard to get a pc to go on getting auditing. They add up under the heading, WINS.

If a pc is not getting wins, then two things happen:

(a) 	Since the pc is not getting more able, the pc is not earning fast enough or finding the additional time necessary to have auditing; 

	and

(b) 	The goal of attaining a higher state is thwarted, and this ARC breaks the pc.

	If a pc is getting wins, then:

(a) 	The pc gets more able, earns more or finds more wherewithal, and accomplishes more in a given period of time, leaving more time to use for auditing; 
	and

(b) 	The minor upsets or discomforts which accompany even the smoothest auditing are disregarded.

ECONOMICS

I am sorry to have to mention economics, but these play their role. Operating in a society full of economic traps and snares, one has to have a solution to them or falter, And this applies to both the auditor and the pc, regardless of whether there is any charge for the auditing or not. Freedom from economic, acute duress means freedom to get audited or audit, and such freedom is bought more easily by ability than chance. But a person’s progress improves the person’s control over things long before O.T. is approached -actually long before clear is realized.

THE ROAD IS LONG

People don’t realize how long the road is -- they don’t want to confront it. But there’s an awful lot of aberration between an ordinary being and a release, much less a clear. A release is one who knows he isn’t going to get worse.

The command of a release over his time and possessions, while not overwhelmingly great compared to a clear’s, is yet fabulous compared to one who was never audited at all.

THE NECESSITY FOR WINS

So it is vitally necessary to keep the pc getting wins, no matter how small, to keep the pc getting audited. This is sometimes hard to do. For the traps of life are always yawning for the person near the bottom. In fact the closer the person is to the bottom, the more likely he or she is to fall into one of life’s snares.

Therefore, the closer to the start the person is, the more necessary it is to get him wins; for the easier it is for him to be thrown about in his routine daily existence. As catastrophe is simply arrived at just in day to day living while quite uncleared and as the person’s answers in that state are not likely to have a high percentage of accuracy, the easier it is for him to get into a condition where he can’t receive further auditing for economic, social or other reasons. It takes wins to surmount all that.

If a being at any point on the route “blows (departs) for good”, they’ve lost the final attainment, even if they did have benefits.

KNOW THE ANSWERS

So to make releases, clears and O.T.’s one has to know the answer to: HOW DO YOU KEEP A PC GETTING AUDITING?

To answer that you have to know the answer to: HOW DO YOU HANDLE A CASE THAT ISN’T WINNING?

And to know that you have to know: HOW DO YOU HANDLE CASES?

And to know that you have to know: HOW DO YOU HANDLE THE PARTICULAR KINDS AND CONDITIONS OF CASES?

All that must seem very vast. And indeed it has been. The knowledge has been of a highly specialized kind, borne out of years of training and experience.

What do you do when the pc does what?

Auditing supervisors have been beating their skulls in on such problems for years.

Therefore, seeing this, I developed a sort of table.

This table or list gives what to watch for, what to look into when it happens and what to run to take care of it.

Now all these processes are old ones. They’re tried and trusty.
I have not tried in this book to give you the magic processes that assist or release or heal or clear or make O.T., for this material is not the material the auditor falls down on. In this book I have given you the processes that keep a pc getting audited when he seems to stop or wants to stop or might stop.

THE FUNDAMENTAL BASICS

Given any kind of competent training, the auditor must realize only these things:

(a) 	If a pc be kept getting auditing, the most dazzling results can be obtained by following the processes for those results

(b) 	If the pc can’t be kept at auditing, no results can be obtained

(c) 	That the pc who gets regular wins, acceptable to the pc, will keep on being audited

(d) 	That the pc who doesn’t get his small quota of wins will blow; and

(e) 	That the blowing preclear is the only remaining, generally unhandled problem in any auditing activity

(f) 	That the preclear can be handled so as not to blow and to get wins.

This book tells you how to do these things.

CHAPTER 4

THE PTP, OVERT AND ARC BREAK

The three general areas which prevent wins are: (1) The P.T.P. (Present Time Problem); (2) The Overt Act (with its withholds of all varieties); and (3) The ARC Break (a sudden drop in Affinity, Reality and Communication). The following facts are some of the best substantiated facts in the whole of our technology:

THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

(1) 	The presence of a Present Time Problem in a session, unless handled, will prevent all gain. If a “PTP” exists in the pc and you try to audit something else and ignore the PTP, the pc’s personality graph will show no change, the TA (Tone Arm of the Meter) will not move well, the pc will not make his or her session goals and auditing may eventually cease.

THE OVERT ACT

(2) 	In the presence of an Overt Act undisclosed to the auditor and withheld from him, no matter how openly it may once have been done, the auditing cycle of communication between auditor and pc (as in TR’s 0 to 4) cannot occur, as the pc is withholding. Therefore, nothing can vanish in the pc’s reactive mind and auditing becomes painful. The graph will not change, nor will the TA move well.

THE ARC BREAK

(3) 	In the presence of an ARC Break, the pc’s attention is so distracted by the reactive charge that has been bypassed (restimulated, but overlooked by both pc and auditor) that the strain of splitting attention between the charge in the bank and the auditor will operate to worsen the pc’s case, reduce the pc’s graph and freeze the tone arm of the meter.  Therefore, one must not pursue an auditing cycle during an ARC break, but may only locate and indicate the bypassed charge.

THE MAIN POINT

If an auditor doesn’t handle these three things competently, the pc will eventually cease to be audited.

Now recognizing that these three things, the PTP, the Overt and the ARC break, are all that really forestall continued auditing, it becomes necessary for the auditor to know his bulletins and be skilled in practice, and to be successful in releasing, healing, clearing or making O.T.’s.

I make no attempt here to give all the anatomy and ways of handling the three demons named above. The technology is all over the place in bulletins and publications, and also I intend to do a book on each one.

Here, I only wish to point out that if a pc gets wins, he or she will get more auditing. If he gets enough steady auditing on standard processes, he or she will go all the way up. And only the PTP, Overt and ARC Break can prevent the wins and cause the blows.

So, to release, heal, clear or make O.T.’s one has to be an expert on blows, their cause and cure.

CHAPTER 5

THE PC THAT QUITS

Pc’s who blow or cease to be audited do so because:

(1) Nobody noticed the rising ARC Break 
(2) The proper action was not taken in time.

HANDLING BLOWS

Therefore, one has to do three things in handling a pc who is about to blow or who blows. (Blow means leave, get out, rush away, cease to be where one should really be or just cease to be audited.) These are: 

(1) 	Notice the condition or circumstances leading to a blow long before the person does. This is probably the single hardest thing to teach, according to my experience, as it depends on the auditor, instructor or Scientologist observing and not being so “reasonable” about the being’s condition that nothing is done.

(2) 	Take the proper action to prevent the blow. By proper action is meant to find out what the circumstances preceding the condition have been and then to fit to those circumstances a course of action. Example: Pc has been running Level I only. Well, one wouldn’t go into Level VI or Level IV processes. If the pc has been running Itsa (Saying “It’s a _______ .”), then obviously there is only the auditor’s acknowledgement to consider. So one only finds out what hasn’t been ack’ed (acknowledged). Example: If the person has only been studying, one finds out what the missed definition was.  In short, base the action on what the being who is blowing was doing just before the blow.

(3) 	Carry out the course of action effectively. Don’t just find out if the person has withholds. Pull them. Example:  HGC pc is blowing. Pc was running overts. D of P (Director of Processing) tells auditor to find the missed withhold.  Auditor comes back and says, “Yes, there was one.” The D of P thinks, “That’s good -- that’s handled.” Then the D of P hears that the pc went back to Smokeville in the middle of the intensive. Checking, the D of P finds that, although a missed withhold registered on the meter and one was pulled,there was a filthy needle afterwards. So there were several missed withholds and an ineffectual job was done.

REMEDIES

Remedies for threats about blowing or blows are only good if:

(1) 	The condition is observed
(2) 	What the person has been doing just before is found out and a course of action based on that is planned; 
(3) 	The course of action is effectively carried out.

Unless these things are done, one often finds the person who is blowing is already beyond reach. Remedies not properly selected or carried out do not seem to work, and so get invalidated.

Remedies are quite workable when the above steps are followed. But a pie that is too sour and requires sugar, doesn’t get any sweeter if you pour salt into it; whereas salt is perfectly acceptable when added to a dish that needs salt.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 NOVEMBER 1967

Remimeo

REVIEW AUDITORS
BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES

REVISION OF REMEDY A, REMEDY B, AND S AND Ds

(Note: To be reprinted for insertion in every
copy of The Book of Case Remedies. )

This bulletin is to be inserted in and changes The Book of Case Remedies PROCEDURES for Remedy A, Remedy B and S and Ds (Search for and Discovery of Suppressives).

Recent analyses made of Qualifications Divisions Departments of Review and of the flow of students and pcs through the Saint Hill org show:

1. 	The KEY processes so far as orgs are concerned are Remedy A, Remedy B and S & Ds.

2. 	Auditors need direct mechanical technology to do these three processes effectively.

REMEDY A

Remedy A locates the MISUNDERSTOODS a person has in Scientology. Originally it read “Misunderstood words”. Words of course will emerge in the general run of misunderstoods.

REMEDY A is done only by LISTING. It must not be done verbally alone. It is a Level III process.

The listing question is “In the subjects of Dianetics or Scientology who or what has been misunderstood’?”

The item is found on the list and given to the student. That is all. There is no other step.

The rules of listing all apply.

If the student won’t have the item it is not correct and the list must be straightened up with the general auditing rules that govern listing.

REMEDY B

The form of this process is changed. It is done by three lists. These three may only be done by formal LISTING and the general tech of listing as governed by Level III tech.

The lists make the form of an I

This is done to locate what in the Scientology PT is giving trouble. It is done as a list and the item is found.

LIST 1 B

The listing question is

“In your studies of Dianetics and Scientology who or what are you having trouble with? “

The item is found and given to the student.

This step is governed by all the tech of listing.

LIST 2B

The item found on List lB is now listed in order to find the past track subject similar to what is giving trouble in present time.

The listing question is

“In your past, who or what was similar to ............(item found in List 1B)?”

It is highly illegal to limit the question to this lifetime.

All the rules of listing apply.

The item is found and given to the student.

LIST 3B

The third list of the process is now done.

The listing question is

“Who or what was misunderstood in ..........(the item found on list 2B)?”

The listing is covered by the general tech of listing as found in Level III.

The item is found and given to the student.

This completes the Remedy B.

If a floating needle occurs any time during the process with good indicators thoroughly visible in the student the process is concluded at that point.

The process is used on anyone having trouble studying Dianetics or Scientology. The trouble, as it doesn’t clear up with Remedy A, is coming from some prior subject.

More than one of these can be done if all steps are done for each one.
S & D

Search and Discovery of Suppression is called an “S and D”. It locates the suppressives on the case.

I have several times undercut (gotten processes that reach deeper) on S & Ds.

The earliest process asked merely who might have been suppressive to the pc. This is still valid but I have found 2 flaws in it.

1. 	The auditor does not do a listing type S & D at all but just chattily brushes it off.

2. 	The list from this question contains an actual suppressive that is passed right over.

Therefore I undercut the question and obtained much better results because the new question reached deeper.

The new question was “Who or what might have suppressed you?”

Then I recalled an even deeper question. This was “What purpose has been suppressed?” This was given to Qual Div SH some time ago. It would have 2 lists. The first is for the purpose as above and the second would be “Who or what suppressed ......(purpose found)?”

For some reason, probably because no one did 2 lists, this undercut was neglected .

Therefore I researched further and developed what we will now use as an S & D.

It is one of these killer processes. It is VERY strong. So it isn’t to be carelessly do ne.

If you get a wrong item on an S & D YOU CAN MAKE THE PC ILL. So one has to do an S & D right and follow all the rules of listing as given in Level III tech.

Also I find now that when a list item found is a generality (multiple subject, not specific such as “dogs” or “the public”) the list is simply not complete. One does not have to settle for a generality and then list the generality. He will find that the pc will eventually list the specific non-general item anyway. Of course one can also do a represent list of a general item found if that seems best.

The real question for an S & D was established only when I found a purpose all Suppressives have in common and is a very fundamental effort in suppressives. This effort by suppressives, when found, then permitted me to form the question.

The key S & D question is:

“Who or what has attempted to unmock you?”

Unmocking (an effort to reduce or make disappear) is the primary effort of suppressives.

Therefore the listing question on test delivers up items totally overlooked by the earlier types of S & D.

The question needs to be cleared carefully for non-Scientology. If it has to be rephrased, watch out as the meaning may vanish. “Tried to make nothing of you” might substitute but at this writing only unmock has been tested and a question for others than educated Scientologists will be developed and issued and made part of the enclosure for the book.

This S & D question must be done by LISTING only and with great care to follow Level III Listing tech as it, being powerful, will backfire on the pc if done carelessly and a wrong item is found.

The item is found by listing and given to the pc, which is the end of the process. If a generality results it may be represented. But listing continued will give the same result of a single item. A general item must not be given to the pc as the final result.

This process will now be standard review S & D.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 JANUARY 1968

Remimeo

S & Ds

There are three types of S & D (Search and Discovery). These are used to nullify the intluence of Suppressive persons or things on a case so the person will be able to be processed and will no longer be PTS (a Potential Trouble Source). People who are PTS became that way because of suppression by persons or objects. Insanity is also remediable by S & Ds where the person can be processed.

These are all LISTING processes and if the auditor is not well-trained and good at the technology of listing, not only will no good result occur but the pc (given a wrong item, overlisted or underlisted, or audited over an ARC Break or PTP) can be made ill.

Pcs who become ill are always to a greater or lesser degree PTS.

These questions should not be shown to a pc as they may start him self-listing.

The “type” is determined by the 1st letter of the key word in the listing question.

S&D TYPE U

“Who or what has attempted to unmock you?”

Where this does not communicate, use “Who or what has tried to make nothing out of you?” A very bad off case may respond best to “Who or what has unmocked you? “

This (above) is the standard and most used S & D.

S&D TYPE S

“Who or what are you trying to stop?”

This works on all cases to a greater or lesser degree. It is particularly useful on a case that is giving a great deal of trouble, gets small reads or is rather suppressive. This should work on the insane also as the point where a Øn (thetan) becomes insane is the point where he begins to generally stop things. I looked for years for the exact point where a Øn ceased to be sane and became insane on any given subject and fmally found that it was the exact moment he became dedicated to trying to stop whatever it was.

S&D TYPE W

“Who or what are you trying to withdraw from?”

This is the action after a failure to stop has occurred.

In administering these, the best order would be Type W, Type S and then Type U, if you are going to give them all to the same pc in a row.

Any or all can be given to the same pc.

S & Ds can be given more than once to the same pc.

Properly listed the results are magical. If they are not magical, then listing tech is badly out and should be restudied from ALL materials and tapes on the subject.

BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN
14 AUGUST 1968 R
REVISED & REISSUED 11 AUGUST 1974 AS BTB 
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST 1968 SAME TITLE
(The only revision is in the last paragraph: “this HCO B” is revised to read “this BTB”)
REMEDY B -- ENVIRONMENT
AND “NEW STYLE”

The Remedy B Environment and “New Style” are both used for the purpose of handling difficulties which the preclear is currently having. These remedies when done properly have rapid and effective results. They are also used to handle glee, which is an extreme case of misunderstoods.

The commands for REMEDY B ENVIRONMENT are:

1b Listing Question
1b “In your environment who or what are you having trouble with?”

2b Listing Question
2b “In your past who or what was similar to _______ (1b item)?” 

3b Listing Question
3b “Who or what was misunderstood in _______ (2b item)?”

Remedy B “NEW STYLE” is done in the following way:

1.  	Select a few related subjects that the Pc may have had difficulty with. (Can include psychoanalysis, hypnotism, mathematics, Navigation, etc.)

2.  	Assess what was sketched out in number 1 and take the one that reads and do the standard actions of Remedy B above.

1b “NEW STYLE” Question

1b “In _______ who or what are you having trouble with?”

2b and 3b commands are the same as in Remedy B.

The commands and data of this BTB are compiled from LRH Supervised case folders in the Sea Org.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1973
Remimeo
A/Guardians
HCO Secs
E/Os
MAAs
Tech Secs
Ds of P
PTS Pack           	                       PTS HANDLING
(PTS = Potential Trouble Source)

There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and KNOW ARE TRUE in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives.

These data are:

1. 	That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.

2. 	That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions:

A. 	Discover,
B. 	Handle or 
C.	Disconnect.

Persons called upon to handle PTS people can do so very easily, far more easily than they believe. Their basic stumbling block is thinking that there are exceptions or that there is other tech or that the two above data have modifiers or are not sweeping. The moment a person who is trying to handle PTS’s gets persuaded there are other conditions or reasons or tech, he is at once lost and will lose the game and not obtain results. And this is very too bad because it is not difficult and the results are there to be obtained.

To turn someone who may be PTS over to an auditor just to have him mechanically audited may not be enough.  In the first place this person may not have a clue what is meant by PTS and may be missing all manner of technical data on life and may be so overwhelmed by a suppressive person or group that he is quite incoherent. Thus just mechanically doing a process may miss the whole show as it misses the person’s understanding of why it is being done.

A PTS person is rarely psychotic. But all psychotics are PTS if only to themselves. A PTS person may be in a state of deficiency or pathology which prevents a ready recovery, but at the same time he will not fully recover unless the PTS condition is also handled. For he became prone to deficiency or pathological illness because he was PTS. And unless the condition is relieved, no matter what medication or nutrition he may be given, he might not recover and certainly will not recover permanently. This seems to indicate that there are “other illnesses or reasons for illness besides being PTS”. To be sure there are deficiencies and illnesses just as there are accidents and injuries.  But strangely enough the person himself precipitates them because being PTS predisposes him to them. In a more garbled way, the medicos and nutritionists are always talking about “stress” causing illness. Lacking full tech they yet have an inkling that this is so because they see it is somehow true. They cannot handle it. Yet they recognize it, and they state that it is a senior situation to various illnesses and accidents. Well, we have the tech of this in more ways than one.

What is this thing called “stress”? It is more than the medico defines it -- he usually says it comes from operational or physical shock and in this he has too limited a view.

A person under stress is actually under a suppression on one or more dynamics.

If that suppression is located and the person handles or disconnects the condition diminishes. If he also has all the engrams and ARC Breaks, problems, overts and withholds audited out triple flow and if ALL such areas of suppression are thus handled, the person would recover from anything caused by “stress”.

Usually the person has insufficient understanding of life or any dynamic to grasp his own situation. He is confused.

He believes all his illnesses are true because they occur in such heavy books!

At some time he was predisposed to illness or accidents.  When a serious suppression then occurred he suffered a precipitation or occurrence of the accident or illness, and then with repeated similar suppressions on the same chain, the illness or tendency to accidents became prolonged or chronic.

To say then that a person is PTS to his current environment would be very limited as a diagnosis. If he continues to do or be something to which the suppressive person or group objected he may become or continue to be ill or have accidents.

Actually the problem of PTS is not very complicated.  Once you have grasped the two data first given, the rest of it becomes simply an analysis of how they apply to this particular person.

A PTS person can be markedly helped in three ways:

(a) 	gaining an understanding of the tech of the condition

(b) 	discovering to what or to whom he is PTS

(c) 	handling or disconnecting.

Someone with the wish or duty to find and handle PTS’s has an additional prior step: He must know how to recognize a PTS and how to handle them when recognized.  Thus it is rather a waste of time to engage in this hunt unless one has been checked out on all the material on suppressives and PTS’s and grasps it without misunderstoods. In other words the first step of the person is to get a grasp of the subject and its tech. This is not difficult to do; it may be a bit more difficult to learn to run an E-meter and considerably more difficult to learn how to list for items, but there again this is possible and is much easier than trying to grope around guessing.

With this step done, a person has no real trouble recognizing PTS people and can have success in handling them which is very gratifying and rewarding. Let us consider the easiest level of approach:

i) 	Give the person the simpler HCOBs on the subject and let him study them so that he knows the elements like “PTS” and “Suppressive”. He may just cognite right there and be much better. It has happened.

ii) 	Have him discuss the illness or accident or condition, without much prodding or probing, that he thinks now may be the result of suppression. He will usually tell you it is right here and now or was a short time ago and will be all set to explain it (without any relief) as stemming from his current environment or a recent one. If you let it go at that he would simply be a bit unhappy and not get well as he is discussing usually a late lock that has a lot of earlier material below it.

iii) 	Ask when he recalls first having that illness or having such accidents. He will at once begin to roll this back and realize that it has happened before. You don’t have to be auditing him as he is all too willing to talk about this in a most informal manner. He will get back to some early this-lifetime point usually.

iv) 	Now ask him who it was. He will usually tell you promptly. And, as you are not really auditing him and he isn’t going backtrack and you are not trying to do more than key him out, you don’t probe any further.

v) 	You will usually find that he has named a person to whom he is still connected! So you ask him whether he wants to handle or disconnect. Now as the sparks will really fly in his life if he dramatically disconnects and if he can’t see how he can, you persuade him to begin to handle on a gradient scale. This may consist of imposing some slight discipline on him such as requiring him to actually answer his mail or write the person a pleasant good roads good weather note or to realistically look at how he estranged them. In short what is required in the handling is a low gradient. All you are trying to do is MOVE THE PTS PERSON FROM EFFECT OVER TO SLIGHT GENTLE CAUSE.

vi) 	Check with the person again, if he is handling, and coach him along, always at a gentle good roads and good weather level and no H E and R (Human Emotion and Reaction) if you please.

That is a simple handling. You can get complexities such as a person being PTS to an unknown person in his immediate vicinity that he may have to find before he can handle or disconnect. You can find people who can’t remember more than a few years back. You can find anything you can find in a case. But simple handling ends when it looks pretty complex. And that’s when you call in the auditor.

But this simple handling will get you quite a few stars in your crown. You will be amazed to find that while some of them don’t instantly recover, medication, vitamins, minerals will now work when before they wouldn’t. You may also get some instant recovers but realize that if they don’t you have not failed.

The auditor can do “3 S & Ds” after this with much more effect as he isn’t working with a completely uninformed person.

“3 S & Ds” only fail because of wrong items or because the auditor did not then put in triple rudiments on the items and then audit them out as engrams triple flow.

A being is rather complex. He may have a lot of sources of suppression. And it may take a lot of very light auditing to get him up to where he can do work on suppressives since these were, after all, the source of his overwhelm.  And what he did to THEM might be more important than what they did to HIM but unless you unburden HIM he may not get around to realizing that.

You can run into a person who can only be handled by Expanded Dianetics.

But you have made an entrance and you have stirred things up and gotten him more aware and just that way you will find he is more at cause.

His illness or proneness to accidents may not be slight.  You may succeed only to the point where he now has a chance, by nutrition, vitamins, minerals, medication, treatment, and above all, auditing, of getting well. Unless you jogged this condition, he had no chance at all: for becoming PTS is the first thing that happened to him on the subject of illness or accidents.
Further, if the person has had a lot of auditing and yet isn’t progressing too well, your simple handling may all of a sudden cause him to line up his case.

So do not underestimate what you or an auditor can do for a PTS. And don’t sell PTS tech short or neglect it. And don’t continue to transfer or push off or even worse tolerate PTS conditions in people.

You CAN do something about it.

And so can they.

CHAPTER 6

TABLE OF REMEDIES

REMEDY A
Applies to: ANY COURSE STUDENT, including P.E.
What is Noticed: Noted to be frowning or nattering.
What is Established: Mainly has been studying.
What to Do: Effectively clarify definitions recently studied.

REMEDY B
Applies to: ANY COURSE STUDENT, including P.E.
What is Noticed: Noted to be frowning, nattering or criticising, and asking questions which really don’t apply to Scientology or twist it.
What is Established: Has been studying similar subjects for years.
What to Do: Get the person audited on definitions not grasped in subjects similar to Scientology and studied previously by the pc. (In P.E. this is assigned as self-audit; in all Other cases it is audited by an auditor.)

REMEDY C
Applies to: ANY STUDENT.
What is Noticed: Being destructive in any way, criticising instructors, auditors.
What is Established: Mainly has been studying.
What to Do: Get upper course student or competent, qualified student to find and pull withholds missed by “Scientologists” and to find when they missed them.

REMEDY D
Applies to: ANY PC.
What is Noticed: Criticising own auditor in session.
What is Established: Has been getting auditing from this auditor for only this session.
What to Do: Look for and pull withholds other auditors have missed.

REMEDY E
Applies to: ANY PC.
What is Noticed: Criticising own auditor in session.
What is Established: His been audited smoothly for more than one session by this auditor or has personal relationships with auditor.
What to Do: Look for and pull overts pc has committed against this auditor. REMEDY F
Applies to: ANY PC.
What is Noticed: Criticising own auditor in session.
What is Established: Has been being audited by auditor who is now antagonistic to pc.
What to Do: Get an ARC Break Assessment done (Level III to VI) on appropriate list and also on List One (L1 for Session ARC Breaks). Then have both pc’s and auditor’s O/W’s pulled on each other.

REMEDY G
Applies to: ANY PC.
What is Noticed: Criticising course or organization.
What is Established: Has been audited some time without gain (minimal TA). What to Do: Get an ARC Break Assessment run on pc, using the list for processes last run and session list also. Do bypassed charge assessment, clearing each appropriate list and session list. Then look for undisclosed PTP’s and hidden standards, and handle by Itsa on solutions they have had for each problem as it is found, until it does not needle register on “How do you feel now about _______ ?”

REMEDY H
Applies to: ANY PERSON.
What is Noticed: Refusing auditing.
What is Established: Has never been audited.
What to Do: Discover what goal this person has had that has been thwarted. Indicate it to person as the bypassed charge. Find who in the person’s surroundings didn’t acknowledge and spot incomplete comm cycles to that person.
Find other people in pc’s life who didn’t ack. Spot these cycles, etc. Then handle as a routine case, but use only light processes. Itsa on solutions to problems, then locational, and then havingness.

REMEDY I
Applies to: ANY PERSON.
What is Noticed: Being bitter about Scientology, being very argumentative. What is Established: No experience with Scientology.
What to Do: Avoid discussion of Scientology. Discuss only other subjects, similar to Scientology, person has not understood, until person feels better about them. (This is not done as auditing.) Then find what goal has been thwarted by earlier, similar subject person is most sour on and indicate it as bypassed charge and proceed as in REMEDY H.

REMEDY J Applies to: ANY PERSON.
What is Noticed: Criticising you as a Scientologist. What is Established: No experience with Scientology. 
What to Do: Have person discuss difficulties they have had in helping people. (Handle these as incomplete comm cycles the person has.) Be careful to ack any overts disclosed, but don’t probe for any not volunteered. Proceed then as in REMEDY H.

REMEDY K
Applies to: ADVANCED PC (upper levels).
What is Noticed: Refusing auditing.
What is Established: Has had some highly restimulative, unsuccessful auditing.
What to Do: Do appropriate ARC Break Assessment to fit the processes run. Thus locate and indicate the main process charge. Do a session type ARC Break Assessment as needed (if pc is still not cheerful). When ARC break’s gone, audit pc on bypassed charge assessments on same lists used to locate ARC break. Go on processing processes that. were already in progress.

REMEDY L
Applies to: ANY PC.
What is Noticed: Pc refusing a majority of available auditors.
What is Established: Pc has been ARC broken by some practitioner somewhere or by auditors.
What to Do: If audited at Level III or below, do generalized (wording questions on list, “In auditing _______ ?”) ARC Break Assessment with L1 (can be broadened to include any practitioner, pre-scientology). If audited above Level III, do ARC Break Assessment using list for process most recently run, then generalized ARC Break Assessment with L1 (session).  Then pull withholds auditors (or earlier practitioners) have missed. Then pull overts on past auditors (or practitioners).  Then if pc not cheerful, pull overts on present auditor.  Resume process that was being run.

REMEDY M
Applies to: ANY PC.
What is Noticed: Pc has blown.
What is Established: Audited over ARC breaks.
What to Do: Examine reports carefully and find earlier session where pc first
set a sour, beginning-of-session goal.      Examine the session immediately before that session and list, from the report on that earlier session, several possible reasons for bypassed charge for both the process that was used and List One (Session ARC Breaks). By any communication means, indicate each of these possible reasons as possible bypassed charge to the pc. When pc returns, do generalized bypassed charge assessments covering the types of processes run during and since the first ARC break. Then do an L1 bypassed charge assessment in a generalized (any session) form. Then determine what goals in auditing have been thwarted, handling by Itsa and letting pc cognite on the various bypassed charges thus located. Then resume auditing what was interrupted by the blow.

REMEDY N
Applies to: ANY PC.
What is Noticed: Leaving session good but consistently returning to next session caved in with new PTP’s.
What is Established: Find out if pc has someone close to him opposed to and fighting Scientology and making nothing of him or his gains.
What is Done: If so, have pc move out of that environment for the duration of any intensive.

REMEDY O
Applies to: INSANE PC.
What is Noticed: Relatives or others demanding something must be done.
What is Established: Pc can best be helped by providing a safe environment. What to Do: Advise isolation and quiet rest away from usual areas and associations, and forbid physically damaging treatments of any kind.

REMEDY P
Applies to: ANY PC.
What is Noticed: Pc continually over-restimulated despite effective auditing. What is Established: Gets more restimulated by usual environment than auditing can stay even with.  What is Done: Advise change of residence and no work during period of intensive.

REMEDY Q
Applies to: ANY PC.
What is Noticed: No remedy seems to work.
What is Established: Discover what other therapies or exercises pc is also doing between sessions.
What is Done: Run Itsa on ideas he has had to help himself until original difficulty shows up, and handle it.

CHAPTER 7

SUPERVISOR’S REMEDIES

The following section of the Table of Remedies applies to any session; therefore, the “Applies to” portion is omitted.  The “What is Observed” portion of each remedy refers to what the supervisor observes in auditing reports or sees in the actual session. The “What to Do” portion refers to what the supervisor now looks for or establishes to be the case. The “What to Direct” portion is what the supervisor tells the auditor to do, either directly, or by writing it on the auditor’s report.

Recognize that these following remedies also should be used by the individual auditor.

REMEDY R
What is Observed: No TA action, were getting it -- not now getting it.
What to Do: Look back through past reports to see when the TA ceased and what happened at that time.
What to Direct: Some earlier process is unflat or auditor didn’t handle something. Tell auditor to flatten earlier process or to handle what was found.

REMEDY S
What is Observed: TA gone high.
What to Do: Go back and find where TA was low. Find the point just after that where something happened.  Investigate that time period for what happened. (PTP, missed withhold, etc.)
What to Direct: Handle what is found.

REMEDY T
What is Observed: Pc sour when giving gains (didn’t make most of session goals).
What to Do: Investigate the session through report, auditor or pc. (Auditor over-flattened a process, Q and A’ed or whatever.)
What to Direct: Handle what happened that soured the pc, specifying what happened.

REMEDY U
What is Observed: Auditor reports that pc’s comments are critical.
What to Do: Investigate that session. (PTP, missed withholds, ARC break, etc.) 
What to Direct: Handle, specifying what was found.

REMEDY V
What is Observed: Auditor says pc is being run on wrong process. Yet there is TA action.
What to Do: Pc protesting process; auditor agreeing.
What to Direct: Flatten process.

REMEDY W
What is Observed: Auditor says pc has an unflattened process.
What to Do: Maybe the pc is only in a win. Something wrong. Find out by talking to pc.
What to Direct: If process pc won on is unflat, flatten that after you’ve flattened what you’re doing. If pc is only stuck in a win, get pc’s considerations on it off and unstick the pc so he can be run on anything.

REMEDY X
What is Observed: Auditor comments process is flat while still getting TA action on it.
What to Do: Normally on investigating, you find pc is protesting process is flat and the auditor has agreed, saying TA action is on “Protest”.
What to Direct: Get session ruds in; flatten process.

REMEDY Y
What is Observed: Auditor suggesting some weird solution (like pc can’t be audited where pc is being audited).
What to Do: Find out why auditor is suggesting solution.  (Maybe withholds from others around, etc.)
What to Direct: Handle the reason the solution is being suggested. (Itsa, any elementary brief process.)

REMEDY Z
What is Observed: Auditor blaming pc’s condition on course, instructors, etc. Or if not on course, is blaming pc’s environment for condition. (Student auditor comments, “The course is over-restimulative. Don’t let pc study or anything.”)
What to Do: Recognize that auditor is not good at destimulating pc, but good only at restimulating.
What to Direct: Run destimulation processes only (PTP’s, overts, etc.).

REMEDY AA
What is Observed: Pc has had electric shock. Auditor’s solution is to run it out.
What to Do: Supervise heavily to prevent it from being done.
What to Direct: Light touch. Don’t go near it. Let pc get on top. Don’t throw pc into something he or she can’t handle.  Locational processes, ARC straight wire, etc.

REMEDY AB
What is Observed: No TA action on chronic somatics.  Auditor wants to do something instantly, but no TA on it.  Auditor has all kinds of reasons why something must be done about it.
What to Do: Find something out about the whole subject that reacts well on meter (hospital, doctor, etc.) and that you can get TA action on, or what they weren’t able to do because of it, or what it got pc out of doing, or what it would cost to lose it.
What to Direct: Run that.

REMEDY AC
What is Observed: Pc gets queasy in auditing (an auditing queasiness). What to Do: Havingness down. Auditor is not really running a havingness process right.
What to Direct: See that havingness is run right or pc’s right havingness process is found.

REMEDY AD
What is Observed: While being audited, pc doesn’t want to be controlled. Not ARC broken, just balky.
What to Do: Check Help.
What to Direct: 5-way Help bracket.

REMEDY AE
What is Observed: Pc complaining about mass, no matter what you run. (Auditor says, “Every time pc talks of 1962 he gets mass.”)
What to Do: Recognize it’s a service facsimile.
What to Direct: Locate and handle the pc’s service fac.

REMEDY AF
What is Observed: The degraded type pc (never been able to help). The “can’t” type pc (can’t audit, etc.).
What to Do: Discover if, in actual fact, they’re being effective in the area they say they aren’t.
What to Direct: Appropriate sec. checking. (There are hidden overts in the area of the complaint.) (A special sec.  check list may have to be drawn up for area.)

REMEDY AG
What is Observed: Weird chronic PTP. (The preclear is always concerned about “husband running around with other women”, yet this is not happening.) No TA action on it.  What to Do: If no TA action on it, find out what the problem really is.
What to Direct: Look for an area around that subject which does get TA and run it and destimulate the problem. (If TA on it, handle like any other PTP).

REMEDY AH
What is Observed: Auditors won’t audit pc. Constant natterer in sessions, nothing cures.
What to Do: Find out if pc’s ARC broken with life.
What to Direct: R4H (R2H was the older designation of the same process.)

REMEDY AI
What is Observed: Pc runs same incident always.
What to Do: Find what pc is doing with this Chronic PTP that has never been brought up or recognized. Incident explains something for pc. (The pc is using the incident as a solution to some PTP that must be run.)
What to Direct: Locate and run the actual PTP.

REMEDY AI
What is Observed: The pc who has huge overts and no responsibility for them. What to Do: Recognize pc has no real idea they are overts and the actions are not real to the pc.
What to Direct: Run Justifications.

REMEDY AK
What is Observed: The person who’s never done anything bad or irregular in his whole life.
What to Do: Recognize the condition as impossible and that pc is withholding heavily.
What to Direct: Find the overts by asking, “Have you ever murdered anyone?” (Ask a lot of shocking questions.) Pc objects, but gives real ones the pc has done.

REMEDY AL
What is Observed: The pc who can remember nothing.
What to Do: Recognize pc is below recall processes.
What to Direct. Cease pressing for recalls at once. Run totally objective processes of a simple kind (“Where is room object _______ ?” etc.), until pc can remember.

REMEDY AM
What is Observed: Pc who won’t do any work in a session.  Auditor has to do it all.
What to Do: Recognize that a session is a solution.
What to Direct: “What is an auditing session a solution to?” Then Done/Not done processes.

REMEDY AN
What is Observed: Pc doesn’t want to talk about case. Comes for session but isn’t interested in case.
What to Do: Recognize pc can’t comm because hasn’t anyone to talk to and has no self. Terminal scarcity.
What to Direct: “Recall a terminal.” Also ARC Straight Wire.

REMEDY AO
What is Observed: Pc doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with him.
What to Do: Sit down and find what pc thinks he can improve. “What area do you think you can make some improvement on?”
What to Direct: Process area.

REMEDY AP
What is Observed: Process fine with good TA action; however, next day process not flat, but no TA action can be gotten on pc. Also the pc that always has to have new processes.
What to Direct: Find overts or withholds. If these don’t cure this, use any type of Duplication which was a standard process for duplication trouble. Run duplication. (Two objects, what things are alike, op-pro-by-dup, etc.)

REMEDY AQ
What is Observed: The unreal pc. (No leg, but has ballet dancer ambitions.)
What to Do: Recognize fact that pc is in an unreality and that pc is not confronting.
What to Direct: Run objective reality (“Look around here and find something really real.”) Also old Universe and Valence processes work on this.

REMEDY AR
What is Observed: Pc looking, doing better, but never seems to get any gains. Complains.
What to Do: Recognize fact pc on a succumb. Auditor -- pc goals are contrary. Hidden standard.
What to Direct: “What would have to happen to you to know Scientology worked?” Run repetitively, and carefully list PTP’s that pc uses as answers for eventual handling. The goof in doing this is not to list PTP’s pc brings up. These must be handled after the process, above, is flat.

REMEDY AS
What is Observed: Pc who wants to shock the auditor.
What to Do: Recognize fact that pc is trying only to produce effects. 
What to Direct: Effect production process, “What could you really do?” 

REMEDY AT
What is Observed: Pc who only wants to give other people’s misdeeds, rarely his own.
What to Do: Recognize pc doesn’t give own misdeeds and pc has withholds. What to Direct: Jo’burg. Justifications.

REMEDY AU
What is Observed: Pc who always has “withholds” he gets off that are critical of the auditor.
What to Do: Recognize as symptom of an overt on auditor, or that pc never recognizes who auditor is. Confuses auditor with somebody else.
What to Direct: Run overts on auditor or “Look at me. Who am I?” 

REMEDY AV
What is Observed: Pc inventing processes he must have run on him. What to Do: Recognize fact that pc has unflattened processes. What to Direct: Find and flatten unflattened processes.

REMEDY AW
What is Observed: Pc writing auditor huge notes.
What to Do: Realize pc had not been ack’ed.
What to Direct: “What have I heard?” Any other ack process. (Also “Recall a terminal.”)

REMEDY AX
What is Observed: Pc who does everything he’s not supposed to do while being audited.
What to Do: Realize pc feels he doesn’t deserve auditing.  Wasting auditing. Wasting help.
What to Direct: “Who deserves auditing?” Any of the old time Valence or Universe processes. Also “Who should be getting auditing?”

REMEDY AY
What is Observed: Pc who can only be audited by a specific auditor.
What to Do: Recognize terminal scarcity.
What to Direct: “Recall a Terminal.”

REMEDY AZ
What is Observed: Pc who complains processing has ruined some ability. 
What to Do: Find if the process was left unflat.
What to Direct: Flatten the process that “ruined” him.

REMEDY BA
What is Observed: Pc is doing something else other than what auditor is doing.
What to Do: Recognize pc is doing odd things with questions.
What to Direct: Hand Space Mimicry, or any duplication process.

REMEDY BB
What is Observed: Pc with withholds, but never gets them off.
What to Do: Recognize pc audited above comm level.
What to Direct: “Who would it be safe to talk to?” or “What could you tell me?”

REMEDY BC
What is Observed: Pc obsessively digging up bad things in his case. (You do something for pc and pc has something else wrong. Can’t keep ahead of the pc’s difficulties or symptoms.)
What to Do: Establish if pc being audited on own determinism and handle PTP with person making pc get audited.  Also Serv Fac. Also huge, undisclosed PTP or huge, undisclosed overt.
What to Direct: Handle what is established above.

REMEDY BD
What is Observed: Pc in past wins (glories of yesterday).
What to Do: Recognize pc is stuck in wins.
What to Direct: Validation type processing. “What have you been?” or “Recall a win.”

REMEDY BE
What is Observed: Pc, always and only. auditing away at back track.
What to Do: See if pc isn’t heavily over-restimulated.
What to Direct: Destimulative type, light auditing only.

REMEDY BF
What is Observed: pc always running as having been important identities in the past.
What to Do: See if pc is bitter about present life or if pc feels degraded about something.
What to Direct: R4H (old R2H redesignated as R4H).

REMEDY BG
What is Observed: pc who uses psychoanalytic terms, symptoms and explanations continually, or any pc who uses terms and symptoms of another practice, religion or activity.
What to Do: Establish what practice or body of knowledge it was.
What to Direct: “What was (practice) a solution to?”, O/W on practitioner, missed withholds from practitioner, misunderstood terms, unflattened “process”. Get the problem the pc was trying to solve by going to the analyst (or other practitioner). If problem is occluded, it will finally emerge by getting pc to recall solutions. (A whole psychoanalysis can be “lock scanned” out in a short time.)

REMEDY BH
What is Observed: Unable to pull an overt.
What io Do: Get the pc’s comm level to auditor raised.
What to Direct: Be sure pc is not in an ARC break (if so, get appropriate assessment done first and handle ARC break). Direct “What are you willing to talk to me about?” be run until student or pc in good comm with auditor. Then pull the overts.

REMEDY BI
What is Observed: Student or pc wants to leave before activity completed. Has motivators.
What to Do: Stamp on anyone who is “being reasonable” about condition and explain to them definitions and overts.  Get student or pc handled by self or another. Refuse to let people flub this one.
What to Direct: (a) Handle any ARC break by appropriate list. (b) Pull any overt student or pc has recently committed in the area. (c) Get the word, the student or pc has missed or not understood, located and defined. (d) Get the Instructor or auditor checked out on overts and also misdefined words.

REMEDY BJ
Applies to: CASES THAT DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THE ABOVE WHEN THE CORRECT OBSERVATION WAS MADE AND THE REMEDY WELL APPLIED.
What is Observed: No remedies work although pc has been audited on them. What to Do: Find out if pc
(a) Has been drawing or has been promised disability compensation, or
(b) Is in any way being rewarded for his condition, or
(c) Has been part of any healing profession, or
(d) Is a professional auditor or Scientologist.
Assess the words “condition”, “disability”, “sickness” for largest read. (Other words of like nature may be used in the assessment.)
What to Direct: Flatten the following process: “What (word assessed) have you been paid for?” (Tense can also be Changed to “are you being” or “will you be” connected to word assessed.)

CHAPTER 8

TECHNICAL NOTES

Note 1: 	THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS AND BYPASSED CHARGE AUDITING. You do not audit an ARC Break Assessment. Auditing consists of asking or commanding and acknowledging. You don’t ask anything, or give a command and then acknowledge, while giving an ARC Break Assessment. You just do it and indicate to the pc what reads on the needle. You do this until the pc is cheerful again. There are several lists. Only one (L1) applies to a session. The others apply to levels and types of processes.

	Only a skilled meter operator should do ARC Break Assessments. An unskilled one makes only more ARC breaks by flubs.

	If an auditor who can’t do an ARC Break Assessment has a pc ARC break, that auditor should find an auditor who can do an assessment and get it done on the pc before proceeding with auditing.

	A bypassed charge assessment, unfortunately, also has “assessment” as part of its name and can be confused with an ARC Break Assessment. But a bypassed charge assessment is actual auditing (Level III). Here one cleans each smallest read off a question (but not cleaning cleans) before going on to the next question, handling originations by the pc and acknowledging. One never does this with an ARC broken pc. With an ARC break one just ploughs on looking for a big read and indicates it to pc.

Note 2. 	THE DOUBLE ARC BREAK. If at any time during the handling of a pc who is blowy or has blown, the pc again ARC breaks while doing the ARC Break Assessment:.  (a) locate the charge that has just been bypassed; and then (b) resume handling the charge that was being looked for when the new ARC break occurred. Don’t mistake mere criticism and natter which is usually present during an ARC Break Assessment for a new ARC break.

Note 3. 	All of the above apply to Clay Table and any other type of auditing.

Note 4: 	In the Supervisor remedies I was greatly assisted by Mary Sue who has supervised more HGC’s than any other auditor in the world.

CHAPTER 9

ENVOY

None of the remedies, given above, have failed when actually applied in any case which had the symptoms for which the process is recommended.

They have been used as the routine advice given to auditors for their preclears by myself.

They have been used in many more instances by Mary Sue during times she worked as a Case Supervisor or Director of Processing in many organizations.

Almost all of these processes are quite old.

You will note that these processes do not resolve the preclear’s main aberrations. They only resolve the preclear’s complaints, lack of wins and tendencies to blow.

While useful even in general processing, few would be a satisfactory diet for all sessions, always.

Here we are only taking up the troublesome cases, the cases that are made troublesome by lack of wins, the case situations which absorb the bulk of a Supervisor’s time and sap his and the auditor’s morale.

I don’t at the moment recall any cases or conditions of blow different from the ones given in the tables above. And Mary Sue, after some thought, couldn’t recall any others.  This does not mean there are no others, but they would be pretty unusual if there were.

USE BY SUPERVISORS

The apparent exception to the table, the case everybody says is different and nut covered, falls under the “Australian heading” (because Australians almost never do what they’re asked to do.)
This exception would go somewhat like this: D of P to Staff Auditor: “Use Remedy AG on your pc today.” (Later) Staff Auditor to D of P: “That didn’t work.”

This routine could be followed by the D of P thinking, “Golly, that’s a different type of case. Not covered in the table”, and sitting up half the night working out a new approach. Rather the D of P, being wily and wise in the ways of auditors, should have said to, “That didn’t work.” D of P to Staff Auditor: “What didn’t work?” And the staff auditor would then have said, “Why, getting the pc to think of horrible things to do to her husband.” Which isn’t, if you care to look, REMEDY AG.

For being wily and wise myself in these matters, I always ask “What didn’t work?” And if the answer was what I’d said in the first place, I’d have then asked the pc what was run and would have found something else had been used.

By being sure the direction was followed and was done, I then have found what did and didn’t work; and so you have a table.

And in using it to supervise be sure that: (1) The condition the pc is manifesting is the one reported, (2) The right manifestation is located in the table, and (3) The instruction is properly and completely executed. 

Only if you do these things, can you supervise the auditing of pc’s successfully. The Case Supervisor or D of P who doesn’t take the three steps above, remorselessly, will have pc’s blow or will have that more gentle blow; they just don’t keep on with auditing.

But let us end on a happier note.

You have here the secrets of fourteen years of experience with patching up cases and keeping them going.

I’m glad I thought of putting it together for you.

And you are welcome to all the success it brings.

Good auditing!

INDEX TO REMEDIES 

“Ability ruined by processing” 	Z 
Ack, Lack of                     	H, AW
Advanced pc                  	K
advice, Giving                      	N, O, P
antagonism Auditor      	F
ARC breaks              	F, G, K, L, M, U, AH, BH, BI
Argumentative person  	I
auditing, Refusing              	H, K
auditing, Unsuccessful 	K
auditing, Wasting              	AX
auditors, Professional     	BJ
auditors, Refusing             	L, AY
Auditors won’t audit this pc 	AH
back track, Always             	BE
Between sessions             	N, P, Q
Bitterness                	I, BF
Blown                  	M
Breaking rules                      	AX
Bypassed charge assessment            	G, K, M
“Can’t” type pc	AF
Case, “has none”	AN, AO
cases (other), Remedies for	Q, BJ
comm cycles, Incompleted 	H, J
comm level, Audited above  	BB, BH
Complaining pc	AR, AZ
confronting, Not	AQ
control, Resisting	AD
Courses	A, B, C
Critical	A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, U, Z, AT,AU
Critical of own auditor  	D, E, F, AU
definitions, Use of   	A, B, I, BG, BI
Degraded pc	AF, BC, BF
“Deserves no auditing”	AX
duplication, Mis- or Non-	AP, BA
Destimulation	K, N, O, P, Z, AG, BE
determinism, Other 	BC
difficulties, Can’t keep ahead of	N, P, BC
Disability compensation  	BJ
Discussion	I, J
effect on auditor, Wants to produce  	AS
Electric shock	AA
Environment	N, O, P, Z
Exercises, Other fields	Q
Flat process    	W, X
Friends opposed to pc 	N
Frowning 	A, B
gain, NO                            	G, K, N, P, Q, AB, AH, AR, BJ 
gains, Sour	T, AR
Goals, auditor-pc contrary	AR
Goals sour beginning session	M
goals, session, Didn’t make 	T
Goal thwarted 	H, I, M
Havingness   	H, AC
Healing professions	BJ
help, Wasting	AX
Hidden standards	G, AR
help, Difficulties with	J, AF
identities, Important past	BF
incident, Always runs same	AI
Incomplete activity, wants to leave	BI
Insane pc	O
Instructors (useful to) 	A, B, C, G, I, J, BI
Interest, none in case 	AN
Inventing processes	AV
Justifications	AJ, AT
levels, Upper    	K, L
mass, Complaints about 	AE
misdeeds, Giving Others	AT
Misdeeds, has none	AK
Missed withholds	C, D, L, S, U, BG
Motivators 	BI
Natter      	A, B, C, AH
New persons (non-Scientologists)     	A, B, H, I, J, L 
notes, Writing auditor huge	AW
Occlusion	AL, BG
Other treatments (therapies)  	B, O, Q, BG, BJ
Over-flattened process         	T
Over-restimulation 	K, N, O, P, Z, BE
Overts       	E, F, J, L, Z, AF, AJ, AK, AP, AT,AU, BC, 	BH, BI
Overts on auditor  	E, F, AU
overts, Giving Others        	AT
Overts, has none	AK
overts, Obsessively giving	BC
PE Course (useful to)      	A, B, C, I, J
PTP’s   	G, N, P, Q, S, U, Z, AG, AI, AR,BC, BG
PTP’s Chronic	AG, AI
PTP’s, Constantly new	N, P
Practices, other                    	O, Q, BG 
Practitioners  	L, BG, BJ

Processes (handling of)
Always must have new  	AP
Flat	R, V, W, X, AP
Inventing	AV
Over-flat	T
Protesting 	V, X
Unflat  	R, V, W, X, AP, AV, AZ, BG
Wrong	V

Processes (types)
Ack	H, J, AW
Advice  	B, N, O, P
ARC Break Assessment	F, G, K, L M U, AH, BH
ARC Straight Wire	AA, AN
Bypassed charge assessment	G, K, M
Definitions   	A, B, I, BG, BJ
Discussion   	I, J
“Done/Not done”  	AM
Duplication	AP, BA
Effect production	AS
Havingness	H, AC
Help 	AD
Itsa	G, H, M, Q, Y
Jo’burg 	AT
Justifications	AJ, AT
Locational	H, AA
Lock scanning 	BG
Missed withholds	C, D, L, S, U, BG
Objective 	AL, AQ
O/W	F, AM, BG
Overts  	E, J, L, Z, AF, AJ, AK, AP, AU, BC,BH, BI
R4H (R2H)	AH, BF
Recall	AL, AN, AW, AY, BD, BG
Sec. checking	AF, AK, AT
Service fac	AE, BC
Solutions	G, AM, BG
Universe  	AQ, AX
Valence	AQ, AX
Validation	BD
Withholds	F, AK, AP, AT, AU, BB, BG
Professional auditors	BJ
Psychoanalysis	BG
pull overts, Unable to	BH
Q&A	T
queasiness, Auditing	AC
questions, Non-applicable 	B
Recall, none	AL
Refusing auditing 	H, K
Refusing auditors 	L, AY
Registrars (useful to)	H, I, J
Relatives	N, O, P
Religions, Other	BG
Remedies, when none work 	Q, BJ 
Reasonableness	BI
Responsibility, none	AJ
Restimulation	K, N, O, P, Z, BE
Safe environment      	O, BB
Service fac	AE, BC
shock auditor, Trying to 	AS
solutions, Auditor            	Y, Z, AA, AB 
solutions, Weird                    	Y, Z, AA, AB, AI, AM 
somatics, Chronic 	AB
Stuck in wins	W, BD
Students	A, B, C
TA High	S
TA action, Minimal         	G
TA action, none            	R, AB, AG, AP 
Terminal scarcity	AN, AW, AY
terms, Misunderstood	A, B, I, BG, BI
Treatment, therapies, other	B, P, Q, BC, BF
Unflat process   	R, V, W, X, AP, AV, AZ, BG
Unreal pc                             	AJ, AQ
Wasting auditing, -- help 	AX
wins, Stuck in	W, BD
Withholds	F, AK, AP, AT, AU, BB, BG
“withholds”, Critical 	AU
withholds, Never gets off  	BB
words, Misunderstood	A, B, I, BG, BI
work in session, Won’t   	AM
Wrong process	V

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 SEPTEMBER 1967

Applicable Levels
Internes
Remimeo

REMEDY B

Remedy B in The Book of Case Remedies MUST NOT BE RUN TO LIMIT THE PC TO THIS LIFE.

The way to do this remedy is BY LISTING. It is a process of Level III.

One asks for subjects or practices similar to Scientology. He LISTS the answers. He makes a complete list, not too short, not too long, and the item on it. Usually the correct subject or practice gives a Blowdown.

The pc sometimes cognites at this point and good indicators come in strongly.

If this does not spectacularly occur, one asks for the misunderstoods (not the misunderstood words) the pc might have on this subject. This probably cleans it all up IF YOU GOT THE RIGHT ITEM ON THE LIST.

Remedy B has been run lately in a manner to limit it to this life. That is an error. The pc never has done anything in this life that aberrated him. The subject on which Scientology is hanging up is almost always in a past life. Hence it is reached only by generalized listing.

You don’t ask, in Remedy B, for misunderstood WORDS in the found subject as these would be in Hottentot, Arabic, lingua spacia or some outlandish tongue the pc has no memory of.

As a comment, why can’t people just understand a process and do it without goofing it. Remedy B has been rendered wholly ineffective by the misinterpretation it has received.

Remedy B is a vital process and if run and run right as above it cures the slow Academy student.

So let’s do it do it do it and without goofs, huh?

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:jp.cden 
Copyright © 1967 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 NOVEMBER 1964
Remimeo
Sthil Students
Sthil Scn Staff	
SCIENTOLOGY III & IV

MORE CLAY TABLE CLEARING GOOFS

It has come to my attention that auditors in some instances have found a new way of not getting their auditing question answered on Clay Table work.

They don’t get the pc to represent the meaning of the word but let the pc do something in clay vaguely similar to the word.

Example of wrong action: Auditor has found the word “Alchemy” has been misunderstood. Says, “Represent Alchemy.” Pc then does in Clay a retort and a man in a conical hat. Auditor says, “Okay.” This is a goof.

In fact two goofs may be present. If the pc had really not understood “Alchemy” his answer in Clay would have been a more searching one. The auditor may have gotten five or six words from the pc and selected one that had no reaction and in which the pc was not interested. For a pc to be so glib means the pc isn’t even puzzled about it and the auditor isn’t auditing an aberration (a held-down 5) at all. (See Dianetics Evolution of a Science and my lecture this year on the definition of Clear, without understanding which nobody is going to clear anybody anyway.)

There may even be a third goof. The auditor has no grasp at all of what constitutes Clay Table Clearing or why it works and hasn’t got the idea he is clarifying meanings and clearing up puzzles the pc has.

The actual goof is that the pc did not represent the word.

REPRESENT means, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: “to bring into presence; to bring clearly and distinctly before the mind; to place clearly before another.”

This even shows up yet another goof. The auditor had no clearer idea of “Alchemy” than before and so was a sort of disinterested party to the whole thing and, on investigation, would have been found to pay no heed habitually to pc origins. Therefore the auditor was weak on TR 2 and a catastrophe on TR 4.

But getting back to the main goof, pc really not representing the word, therefore not answering the auditing command, is obvious in that no clearer or more distinct understanding of the word emerged.

The pc, then, didn’t answer the “What word or term haven’t you understood in that subject?” and gave a term he really already knew, or the auditor didn’t accept the right one out of several offered, leaving in fact the pc’s answer unacknowledged.

Then when the auditor gave the second command, “Represent Alchemy,” one auditing cycle had already been missed as above and so represent was not done either.

If an auditor runs into the trouble of a pc just doodling in Clay with no clarification of anything, then one of the following is at fault:

(a) 	The auditor accepted a subject the pc didn’t want to improve at all; or

(b) 	The auditor accepted a “misunderstood word” which the pc had never misunderstood; or

(c) 	The auditor didn’t get even earlier commands answered on the pc and so had a sloppy comm cycle going already; or

(d) 	The auditor had no idea of what Clay Table Clearing was all about; or

(e) 	The auditor was auditing far above the pc’s level and should have been working out of the Book of Remedies rather than Clay Table Clearing; or

(f) 	The auditor was continuing to audit an already ARC broken pc; or

(g) 	The pc hadn’t enough grasp of the meaning of the word chosen to even start; or

(h) 	The pc hadn’t a clue what “represent” means.

Resolutions of (a) to (f) are pretty obvious to any trained auditor. But they are resolved as follows:

(a) 	Get the pc in comm as pc obviously not willing to talk about personal affairs or himself to the auditor. This is the oldest “In Session” definition. “What are you willing to talk to me about?” is the commonest remedy.

(b) 	Same as (a) or the auditor is just willfully choosing the wrong word out of suggestions the pc makes in which case O/W on pcs is indicated on the auditor.

(c) 	Pc or auditor madly out of comm with the other and the reason should be found and remedied.

(d) 	The auditor should review Dianetics Evolution of a Science and have a Star-Rated examination on as well as a demonstration by the auditor of the definitions and principles of the lecture on Clearing of this year, before being permitted to do any more CT work.

(e) 	The pc long since should have been looked up in the Book of Remedies and the remedy applied for the pc’s condition or case before ever adventuring upon routine auditing such as Clay Table Clearing.

(f) 	An ARC Break Assessment should have been done if this was what was wrong.

(g) 	The pc should be given a dictionary to look the term up in before representing it in Clay.

(h) 	The pc should be oriented or trained as to what is expected of him in Clay Table auditing including the meaning of represent.

Also, to add a somewhat unusual solution, the command “Represent Alchemy” should be lengthened to “Represent the meaning of the word Alchemy in Clay.”

AUDITING CYCLE

The more I see of Clay Table goofs the more impressed I am with the wisdom of keeping Clay Table Clearing at Level IV. Because the main goofs are all auditing cycle goofs. The silly ones—such as the auditor never has passed Itsa but has always only done TR 0 when asked to do so, this auditor has never listened to the pc—such as gummed up TR 1—such as the auditor acknowledging the pc before he has a clue what the pc said or did—such as the auditor wandering off the course of the session, Q and Aing and just not duplicating the auditing command—such as failing to handle pc originations.

Clay Table work separates the experts and amateurs like a gourmet would separate sour wine and champagne.

With sour basic auditing, it just doesn’t satisfy what’s required.

I think letting students putter about with Clay even on Scientology definitions before they are Class Is at least is a horrible mistake.

Every consistently done Clay Table goofing I’ve seen so far showed up an auditor who just didn’t know his auditing cycle and couldn’t get that done, much less CT Clearing.

CT Clearing not only can be done. It Clears. If done.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.rd
copyright ©1964						
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER AD14
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students

STYLES OF AUDITING

Note 1: Most old-time auditors, particularly Saint Hill Graduates, have been trained at one time or another in these auditing styles. Here they are given names and assigned to Levels so that they can be taught more easily and so that general auditing can be improved.

(Note 2: These have not been written before because I had not determined the results vital to each Level.)

There is a Style of auditing for each class. By Style is meant a method or custom of performing actions.

A Style is not really determined by the process being run so much. A Style is how the auditor addresses his task.

Different processes carry different style requirements perhaps, but that is not the point. Clay Table Healing at Level III can be run with Level I style and still have some gains. But an auditor trained up to the style required at Level III would do a better job not only of CT Healing but of any repetitive process.

Style is how the auditor audits. The real expert can do them all, but only after he can do each one. Style is a mark of Class. It is not individual. In our meaning, it is a distinct way to handle the tools of auditing.

LEVEL ZERO
LISTEN STYLE

At Level 0 the Style is Listen Style Auditing. Here the auditor is expected to listen to the pc. The only skill necessary is listening to another. As soon as it is ascertained that the auditor is listening (not just confronting or ignoring) the auditor can be checked out. The length of time an auditor can listen without tension or strain showing could be a factor. What the pc does is not a factor considered in judging this style. Pcs, however, talk to an auditor who is really listening.

Here we have the highest point that old-time mental therapies reached (when they did reach it), such as psychoanalysis, when they helped anyone. Mostly they were well below this, evaluating, invalidating, interrupting. These three things are what the instructor in this style should try to put across to the HAS student.

Listen Style should not be complicated by expecting more of the auditor than just this: Listen to the pc without evaluating, invalidating or interrupting.

Adding on higher skills like “Is the pc talking interestingly?” or even “Is the pc talking?” is no part of this style. When this auditor gets in trouble and the pc won’t talk or isn’t interested, a higher classed auditor is called in, a new question given by the supervisor, etc.

It really isn’t “Itsa” to be very technical. Itsa is the action of the pc saying, “It’s a this” or “It’s a that.” Getting the pc to Itsa is quite beyond Listen Style auditors where the pc won’t. It’s the supervisor or the question on the blackboard that gets the pc to Itsa.

The ability to listen, learned well, stays with the auditor up through the grades. One doesn’t cease to use it even at Level VI. But one has to learn it somewhere and that’s at Level Zero. So Listen Style Auditing is just listening. It thereafter adds into the other styles.

LEVEL ONE
MUZZLED AUDITING

This could also be called rote style auditing.

Muzzled Auditing has been with us many years. It is the stark total of TRs 0 to 4 and not anything else added.

It is called so because auditors too often added in comments, Qed and Aed, deviated, discussed and otherwise messed up a session. Muzzle meant a “muzzle was put on them”, figuratively speaking, so they would only state the auditing command and ack.

Repetitive Command Auditing, using TRs 0 to 4, at Level One is done completely muzzled.

This could be called Muzzled Repetitive Auditing Style but will be called “Muzzled Style” for the sake of brevity.

It has been a matter of long experience that pcs who didn’t make gains with the partially trained auditor permitted to two-way comm, did make gains the instant the auditor was muzzled: to wit, not permitted to do a thing but run the process, permitted to say nothing but the commands and acknowledge them and handle pc originations by simple acknowledgment without any other question or comment.

At Level One we don’t expect the auditor to do anything but state the command (or ask the question) with no variation, acknowledge the pc’s answer and handle the pc origins by understanding and acknowledging what the pc said.

Those processes used at Level One actually respond best to muzzled auditing and worst to misguided efforts to “Two-Way Comm”.

Listen Style combines with Muzzled Style easily. But watch out that Level One sessions don’t disintegrate to Level Zero.

Crisp, clean repetitive commands, muzzled, given and answered often, are the road out—not pc wanderings.

A pc at this Level is instructed in exactly what is expected of him, exactly what the auditor will do. The pc is even put through a few “do birds fly?” cycles until the pc gets the idea. Then the processing works.

An auditor trying to do Muzzled Repetitive Auditing on a pc who, through past “therapy experience”, is rambling on and on is a sad sight. It means that control is out (or that the pc never got above Level Zero).

It’s the number of commands given and answered in a unit of auditing time that gets gains. To that add the correctly chosen repetitive process and you have a release in short order, using the processes of this Level.

To follow limp Listen Style with crisp, controlled Muzzled Style may be a shock. But they are each the lowest of the two families of auditing styles—Totally Permissive and Totally Controlled. And they are so different each is easy to learn with no confusion. It’s been the lack of difference amongst styles that confuses the student into slopping about. Well, these two are different enough—Listen Style and Muzzled Style—to set anybody straight.

LEVEL TWO
GUIDING STYLE AUDITING

An old-time auditor would have recognized this style under two separate names: (a) Two-Way Comm and (b) Formal Auditing.

We condense these two old styles under one new name: Guiding Style Auditing.

One first guides the pc by “two-way comm” into some subject that has to be handled or into revealing what should be handled and then the auditor handles it with formal repetitive commands.

Guiding Style Auditing becomes feasible only when a student can do Listen Style and Muzzled Style Auditing well.

Formerly the student who couldn’t confront or duplicate a command took refuge in sloppy discussions with the pc and called it auditing or “Two-Way Comm”.

The first thing to know about Guiding Style is that one lets the pc talk and Itsa without chop, but also gets the pc steered into the proper subject and gets the job done with repetitive commands.

We presuppose the auditor at this Level has had enough case gain to be able to occupy the viewpoint of the auditor and therefore to be able to observe the pc. We also presuppose at this Level that the auditor, being able to occupy a viewpoint, is therefore more self-determined, the two things being related. (One can only be self-determined when one can observe the actual situation before one: otherwise a being is delusion-determined or other-determined.)

Thus in Guiding Style Auditing, the auditor is there to find out what’s what from the pc and then apply the needful remedy.

Most of the processes in the Book of Remedies are included in this Level (II). To use those, one has to observe the pc, discover what the pc is doing, and remedy the pc’s case accordingly.

The result for the pc is a far-reaching re-orientation in Life.

Thus the essentials of Guiding Style Auditing consist of Two-Way Comm that steers the pc into revealing a difficulty followed by a repetitive process to handle what has been revealed.

One does expert TRs but one may discuss things with the pc, let the pc talk and in general one audits the pc before one, establishing what that pc needs and then doing it with crisp repetitive auditing, but all the while alert to changes in the pc.

One runs at this Level against Tone Arm Action, paying little or no heed to the needle except as a centering device for TA position. One even establishes what’s to be done by the action of the Tone Arm. (The process of storing up things to run on the pc by seeing what fell when he was running what’s being run, now belongs at this Level (II) and will be re-numbered accordingly.)

At II one expects to handle a lot of chronic PTPs, overts, ARC Breaks with Life (but not session ARC Breaks, that being a needle action, session ARC Breaks being sorted out by a higher classed auditor if they occur).

To get such things done (PTPs, overts and other remedies) in the session the auditor must have a pc “willing to talk to the auditor about his difficulties”. That presupposes we have an auditor at this Level who can ask questions, not repetitive, that guide the pc into talking about the difficulty that needs to be handled.

Great command of TR 4 is the primary difference in TRs from Level I. One understands, when one doesn’t, by asking more questions, and by really acknowledging only when one has really understood it.

Guided comm is the clue to control at this Level. One should easily guide the pc’s comm in and out and around without chopping the pc or wasting session time. As soon as an auditor gets the idea of finite result or, that is to say, a specific and definite result expected, all this is easy. Pc has a PTP. Example: Auditor has to have the idea he is to locate and destimulate the PTP so pc is not bothered about it (and isn’t being driven to do something about it) as the finite result.

The auditor at II is trained to audit the pc before him, get the pc into comm, guide the pc toward data needful to choose a process and then to run the process necessary to resolve that thing found, usually by repetitive command and always by TA.

The Book of Remedies is the key to this Level and this auditing style.

One listens but only to what one has guided the pc into. One runs repetitive commands with good TR 4. And one may search around for quite a while before one is satisfied he has the answer from the pc needful to resolve a certain aspect of the pc’s case.

O/W can be run at Level I. But at Level II one may guide the pc into divulging what the pc considers a real overt act and, having that, then guide the pc through all the reasons it wasn’t an overt and so eventually blow it.

Half-acknowledgment is also taught at Level II—the ways of keeping a pc talking by giving the pc the feeling he is being heard and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2.

Big or multiple acknowledgment is also taught to shut the pc off when the pc is going off the subject.

LEVEL III
ABRIDGED STYLE AUDITING

By Abridged is meant “abbreviated”, shorn of extras. Any not actually needful auditing command is deleted.

For instance, at Level I the auditor always says, when the pc wanders off the subject, “I will repeat the auditing command” and does so. In Abridged Style the auditor omits this when it isn’t necessary and just asks the command again if the pc has forgotten it.

In this style we have shifted from pure rote to a sensible use or omission as needful. We still use repetitive commands expertly, but we don’t use rote that is unnecessary to the situation.

Two-Way Comm comes into its own at Level III. But with heavy use of repetitive commands.

At this Level we have as the primary process, Clay Table Healing. In this an auditor must make sure the commands are followed exactly. No auditing command is ever let go of until that actual command is answered by the pc.

But at the same time, one doesn’t necessarily give every auditing command the process has in its rundown.

In Clay Table Healing one is supposed to make sure the pc is satisfied each time. This is done more often by observation than command. Yet it is done.

We suppose at III that we have an auditor who is in pretty fine shape and can observe. Thus we see the pc is satisfied and don’t mention it. Thus we see when the pc is not certain and so we get something the pc is certain of in answering the question.

On the other hand, one gives all the necessary commands crisply and definitely and gets them executed.

Prepchecking and needle usage is taught at Level III as well as Clay Table Healing. Auditing by List is also taught. In Abridged Style Auditing one may find the pc (being cleaned up on a list question) giving half a dozen answers in a rush. One doesn’t stop the pc from doing so, one half acknowledges, and lets the pc go on. One is in actual fact handling a bigger auditing comm cycle, that is all. The question elicits more than one answer which is really only one answer. And when that answer is given, it is acknowledged.

One sees when a needle is clean without some formula set of questions that invalidate all the pc’s relief. And one sees it isn’t clean by the continued puzzle on the pc’s face.

There are tricks involved here. One asks a question of the pc with the key word in it and notes that the needle doesn’t tremble, and so concludes the question about the word is flat. And so doesn’t check it again. Example: “Has anything else been suppressed?” One eye on pc, one on needle, needle didn’t quiver. Pc looks noncommittal. Auditor says, “All right, on      “ and goes on to next question, eliminating a pc’s possible protest read that can be mistaken for another “suppress”.

In Abridged Style Auditing one sticks to the essentials and drops rote where it impedes case advance. But that doesn’t mean one wanders about. One is even more crisp and thorough with Abridged Style Auditing than in rote.

One is watching what happens and doing exactly enough to achieve the expected result.

By “Abridged” is meant getting the exact job done—the shortest way between two points—with no waste questions.

By now the student should know that he runs a process to achieve an exact result and he gets the process run in a way to achieve that result in the smallest amount of time.

The student is taught to guide rapidly, to have no time for wide excursions.

The processes at this Level are all rat-a-tat-tat processes—CT Healing, Prepchecking, Auditing by List.

Again it’s the number of times the question is answered per unit of auditing time that makes for speed of result.

LEVEL IV
DIRECT STYLE AUDITING

By direct we mean straight, concentrated, intense, applied in a direct manner.
We do not mean direct in the sense of to direct somebody or to guide. We mean it is direct.

By direct, we don’t mean frank or choppy. On the contrary, we put the pc’s attention on his bank and anything we do is calculated only to make that attention more direct.

It could also mean that we are not auditing by vias. We are auditing straight at the things that need to be reached to make somebody clear.

Other than this the auditing attitude is very easy and relaxed.

At Level IV we have Clay Table Clearing and we have Assessment type processes.

These two types of process are both astonishingly direct. They are aimed directly at the Reactive Mind. They are done in a direct manner.

In CT Clearing we have almost total work and Itsa from pcs. From one end of a session to another, we may have only a few auditing commands. For a pc on CT Clearing does almost all the work if he is in session at all.

Thus we have another implication in the word “direct”. The pc is talking directly to the auditor about what he is making and why in CT Clearing. The auditor hardly ever talks at all.

In assessment the auditor is aiming directly at the pc’s bank and wants no pc in front of it thinking, speculating, maundering or Itsaing. Thus this assessment is a very direct action.

All this requires easy, smooth, steel-hand-in-a-velvet-glove control of the pc. It looks easy and relaxed as a style, it is straight as a Toledo blade.

The trick is to be direct in what’s wanted and not deviate. The auditor settles what’s to be done, gives the command and then the pc may work for a long time, the auditor alert, attentive, completely relaxed.

In assessment the auditor often pays no attention to the pc at all, as in ARC Breaks or assessing lists. Indeed, a pc at this level is trained to be quiet during the assessment of a list.

And in CT Clearing an auditor may be quiet for an hour at a stretch.

The tests are: Can the auditor keep the pc quiet while assessing without ARC Breaking the pc? Can the auditor order the pc to do something and then, the pc working on it, can the auditor remain quiet and attentive for an hour, understanding everything and interrupt alertly only when he doesn’t understand and get the pc to make it clearer to him? Again without ARC Breaking the pc.

You could confuse this Direct Style with Listen Style if you merely glanced at a session of CT Clearing. But what a difference. In Listen Style the pc is blundering on and on and on. In Direct Style the pc wanders off the line an inch and starts to Itsa, let us say, with no clay work and after it was obvious to the auditor that this pc had forgotten the clay, you’d see the auditor, quick as a foil, look at the pc, very interestedly and say, “Let’s see that in Clay.” Or the pc doesn’t really give an ability he wants to improve and you’d hear a quiet persuasive auditor voice, “Are you quite certain you want to improve that? Sounds like a goal to me. Just something, some ability you know, you’d like to improve.”

You could call this style One-Way Auditing. When the pc is given his orders, after that it’s all from the pc to the auditor, and all involved with carrying out that auditing instruction. When the auditor is assessing it is all from the auditor to the pc. Only when the assessment action hits a snag like a PTP is there any other auditing style used.

This is a very extreme auditing style. It is straightforward—direct.

But when needful, as in any Level, the styles learned below it are often also employed, but never in the actual actions of getting CT Clearing and Assessment done.

(Note: Level V would be the same style as VI below.)

LEVEL VI
ALL STYLE

So far, we have dealt with simple actions.

Now we have an auditor handling a meter and a pc who Itsa’s and Cognites and gets PTPs and ARC Breaks and Line Charges and Cognites and who finds Items and lists and who must be handled, handled, handled all the way.

As auditing TA for a 2l/2 hour session can go to 79 or 125 divisions (compared to 10 or 15 for the lowest level), the pace of the session is greater. It is this pace that makes perfect ability at each lower level vital when they combine into All Style. For each is now faster.

So, we learn All Style by learning each of the lower styles well, and then observe and apply the style needed every time it is needed, shifting styles as often as once every minute!

The best way to learn All Style is to become expert at each lower style so that one does the style correct for the situation each time the situation requiring that style occurs.

It is less rough than it looks. But it is also very demanding.

Use the wrong style on a situation and you’ve had it. ARC Break! No progress!

Example: Right in the middle of an assessment the needle gets dirty. The auditor can’t continue—or shouldn’t. The auditor, in Direct Style, looks up to see a-puzzled frown. The auditor has to shift to Guiding Style to find out what ails the pc (who probably doesn’t really know), then to Listen Style while the pc cognites on a chronic PTP that just emerged and bothered the pc, then to Direct Style to finish the Assessment that was in progress.

The only way an auditor can get confused by All Style is by not being good at one of the lower level styles.

Careful inspection will show where the student using All Style is slipping. One then gets the student to review that style that was not well learned and practice it a bit.

So All Style, when poorly done, is very easy to remedy for it will be in error on one or more of the lower level styles. And as all these can be independently taught, the whole can be co-ordinated. All Style is hard to do only when one hasn’t mastered one of the lower level styles.

SUMMARY

These are the important Styles of Auditing. There have been others but they are only variations of those given in this HCO Bulletin. Tone 40 Style is the most notable one missing. It remains as a practice style at Level One to teach fearless body handling and to teach one to get his command obeyed. It is no longer used in practice.

As it was necessary to have every result and every process for each Level to finalize Styles of Auditing, I left this until last and here it is.

Please note that none of these Styles violate the auditing comm cycle or the TRs.

								L. RON HUBBARD 

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

6411C10 SHSpec-46 PTP’s, Overts, and ARC Breaks

There is another style of auditing between Level 0 and Level 2 [See HCOB 6Nov64 “Styles of Auditing”].  It is a version of Guiding Style, without repetitive commands.  It is a guiding style that goes into itsa: coffee-shop style.  [LRH is talking about Guiding Secondary Style, here.  This is outlined in HCOB 12Nov64 “Scientology II.  PC Level 0-IV; Definition Processes”]

(You can herd PCs into line by multiple acknowledgment.)

The styles of auditing parallel the return of self-determinism to the auditor.  Progression upwards through the styles of auditing goes along with an increase in the auditor’s ability to occupy a viewpoint and therefore observe.  The error in training is to demand more of the lower-level auditor than he can possibly deliver, e.g. having a Level 0 auditor finding out from the PC what is troubling him, before having him talk about it.  Listen style is the hardest for the instructor to judge and, at first, for the student to do, because it is so simple that the student adds all sorts of complexities. You must adjust your supervision to this simplicity.

There are three [actually six] barriers to case improvement:

1.  PTP’s.

2.  PTP’s LD.

3.  Overts and withholds.

4.  Overts and withholds LD.

5.  ARC breaks.

6.  ARC breaks LB.  

These are potentially present in any session at any level.  We don’t try to handle them at Level 0 and 1.  They come into action at Level II, with the things given in The Book of Case Remedies.  The woof and warp of any case is composed of a certain mental makeup of combination of a chronic or continuous nature.  In any PC, there is a chronic case mess-up.  Then you have those things that keep the basic aberrations from unraveling.  These are the things that keep the case from being entered and that prevent the PC from being in session, given that he does have an auditor.  Any of these things can be chronic or immediate, continuous or temporary.

An overt act will go into action only when a restraint is put on it, in the form of some sort of withhold.  The person becomes guilty, etc.  Since you have to have secrecy, you have to have censure.  [And with no censure, there is no no need for secrecy.] When a being doesn’t think an action is good, he goes into being made guilty.  Hence the overt-motivator sequence.   [Hence the connection between the feeling of guilt and, on the one hand, feeling that one has done wrong, and, on the other hand, the feeling that one will be punished.] The overt is prior to the withhold.  You should classify overt, withhold, and missed withhold processes all under “overts”.  There are lots of things to know about overts and lots of processes for running them.

The present existence of a problem is worse than its problematic nature. The PTP’s floatingness in time is what is peculiar to it and what makes it get in the way of auditing.  It was looking at the PTP that got LRH into discovering GPM’s.  On a political-philosophical level, the problem appears as dialectical materialism, which says that force vs. force produces ideas. Dialectical materialism is making a philosophy of and deifying the problem. Although dialectical materialism says that force vs. force produces ideas, it is actually the other way ‘round, since, actually, idea vs. idea produces force.  The idea that force makes ideas is just an expression of the Man from Mud theory.  If neither postulate of a problem overcomes the other, force accumulates on them, and the forces will counter-oppose.  If they are in balance, they will hang up in time.  Only those problems that are held in this delicate balance hang up and become PTP’s.  To get rid of a problem, one postulate or the other must give way.  If one side can overbalance the other, the problem slips and doesn’t remain a PTP.  [Past problems may be “solved” by overbalancing, without really being resolved.  These may still exist in the past, but they are not floating up to PT.  PTP’s still have an exact balance on both sides.] The Cold War of Russia vs. the U.S. has slipped, since the idea of co-existence crept into the U.S.S.R..

If, as an auditor, you realize that not every problem needs to be handled, but only the ones that are so delicately balanced, your job will seem easier, since there have been lots of problems in a thetan’s whole existence. The balance is actually so delicate that any little nudge will change it and let it slip away.  You sometimes see a PC struggling to hold onto a PTP that has been a way of life, after the auditor has knocked it off its pins.  The PC has still got tremendous accumulated forces involved in its solution.

A routine is something you use to change an aspect of the PC’s case.  It always works, unless there is a PTP, overt, or ARC break in the way.  An ARC break is actually a tickling of some major restimulation of something in R6. List 1 is adequate to key it out.  It is a direct short-circuit into the bank.  There are actually very few things in chronic restimulation in the bank.  The primary one is difficulties with communication.  That is the primary end-word that gets into restimulation.  There is no real reason why anyone should communicate with anyone about anything.  When you run, “Recall a time you communicated,” you are actually running 268 GPM’s all at once.  So no wonder the PC feels better afterwards!  And when something goes wrong with your comm cycle, that upsets the PC.  Exactly what the PC does at that point is probably the root-word.  When you quiet it down by locating and indicating the BPC, you just drop it back to its former status.  You haven’t done anything for the PC’s case, but you have made him auditable.

The big buttons in the bank are:

1.  Communication.

2.  Time.

3.  Havingness.  

These things, like time, problems, and bits of items like havingness are the things that are in chronic restimulation.  But the aberrative value of havingness, compared to communication and time, is miniscule.  Communication is ‘way back on the series.  Communication and time are in restimulation all the time, or, for one thing, there wouldn’t be any time.  That is one reason why waiting is so upsetting.  That means that you go after ARC breaks with a feather touch to key them out.  Don’t audit them, or you will mess the PC up by keying in “communication” harder.

Knowing that these three phenomena are what keep a case from being audited keeps you from being confused by all the possible manifestations, which do, in fact, boil down to these categories [PTP’s, O/W, and ARC breaks].  The PC can be a troublesome case, a trouble source, because he has someone on the other side of him who doesn’t want him to improve.  He will try to get better to prove the other person wrong, which gives him a PTP, resulting in no case gain.  

Overts carry a lot of different reactions, depending on things like the person’s responsibility level.  They are a source of change, not fixedness, in a case.  The case shifts, does well at times, gets sporadic results, etc.  The PC won’t let himself get any better.  He has odd computations, like the idea that if he gets strong, he might commit overts.  You would get the same manifestation of roller-coaster gain in a PTS condition, if there is someone in the person’s environment who keeps knocking him down whenever he gets better.  The mechanism is a withhold.
When a person has a tremendous number of overts that remain constant, he is trying to solve a problem with overts.  That is the usual reason for the overts.  The overt can be on the part of the person or of society, over the course of an intensive or a longer cycle.  You have to get sufficient gain to get the PC up high enough so that the gates don’t get closed in your face, by his committing more overts before you get to audit him again.  The reason the psychiatrist damages people is that his problem is that of preventing people from damaging other people.  Your problem, then, would be a social problem, in dealing with the continuous PT overt case.  You would have to solve this problem before you could make progress with the case.  The no-change overt case goes up and down a little, unlike the PTP case.  The PC may refrain from committing overts for awhile.  So overts cause change on graphs constantly, but not steadily.  With a fluctuating graph, you could also be facing a PTS situation.  The main problem relating to overts is whether the PC will be damaged by motivators.

Running overts can backfire, if you let the PC get off only whole-track overts, because they are safe, or miniscule overts, critical thoughts, etc. Such a PC is dodging a continuous PT chain of overts.

The PC with continual out-rud is ARC breaky if you try to get him to put his attention elsewhere, because when you take his attention away from the charge of the out-rud, it hits him.  He’s got to have it remedied before he can be run on a routine.  Fortunately, not all PCs need much remedying.  The Book of Case Remedies is basically just a batch of methods for putting in ruds.

You can be as nice as you want about pulling withholds, but remember that it must be done, and that fact may put you beyond niceness once in awhile, e.g. you might have to say something like, “OK.  Come back for some more auditing when you have decided to tell me what you have done.  That’s LF’ing!”

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 NOVEMBER 1964
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students	
SCIENTOLOGY II
PC LEVEL 0-IV

DEFINITION PROCESSES

The first thing to know about DEFINITION PROCESSES is that they are separate and distinct and stand by themselves and are not Clay Table processes.

Because definitions are used in Clay Table work, in clearing and in instruction, it is easy to make the colossal mistake of not realizing they are themselves a distinct type of process and that they can be run with no reference whatever to Clay Table or examinations.

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

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

Because Definitions are also in Clay Table Clearing and are used in Instruction one might overlook A and B as processes.

AUDITING STYLE

Each level has its own basic auditing style and its secondary style as will be found covered completely in publications after this date.

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

ASSISTS

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

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

The pc, in an assist, is however informed of the fact and the assist is begun by “Start of Assist” and “End of Assist”, so an assist, like a session, has a beginning and an end.

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

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

SECONDARY STYLES

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

REMEDIES

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

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

GUIDING STYLE

The essence of Guiding Style is:

1. 	Locate what’s awry with the pc.

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

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

GUIDING SECONDARY STYLE

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

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

2. 	Handling it with Itsa.

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

DEFINITIONS PROCESSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that would be Remedy A.

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

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

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

REMEDY B

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

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

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

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

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

DEFINITIONS PURPOSE

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

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

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

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

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

We are now working hard to make Scientology definitions easy for them by compiling a dictionary, using words new to people only when useful.

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

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

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

UNDERSTANDING

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

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

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

The cycle of Mis-definition is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	                 						L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 NOVEMBER AD14
Remimeo
Sthil Students
Scien. staff	
SCIENTOLOGY III and IV

CLAY TABLE LABEL GOOFS

You will find in all poor auditing situations, where something has gone wrong, that you can figure yourself half to death if you do not know that all auditing errors are gross (huge, large, and in this meaning, basic).

The Gross Auditing Error most commonly found in auditing is just not following the directions for the process. Not mild departures but big ones. This often goes undetected by Case and Auditing Supervisors because the auditing report or the statement of some student is not complete or truthful about what was done.

If Case and Auditing Supervisors don’t know that sometimes reports or statements are most expressive in what they leave unsaid or even twisted to make somebody look good (safeguard repute), then the Case or Auditing Supervisor can worry himself or herself silly trying to find out why some case isn’t running.

Clay Table Healing and Clay Table Clearing, like any other processes, are subject to Gross Auditing Errors (GAEs), incomplete statements or reports or even falsified descriptions of what was or was not done.

“Unusual solutions” is a phrase describing actions taken by an auditor or a Case or Auditing Supervisor when he or she has not spotted the Gross Auditing Error. The “unusual solution” seldom resolves any case because the data on which it is based (the observation or report) is incomplete or inaccurate.

Sometimes people wonder why a certain order was given. They never ask what data was given that described the situation for which the order was given. Example: (Past pc reporting on an auditor) “The auditor was drunk.” Order given as a result: “Auditors must not drink.” Actual situation: Auditor was dizzy after a session and wobbled when he stood up; a whisky bottle in the office had been made into a lamp. The pc’s statement was false data. Therefore the order given by the D of P was an order which remedied nothing. The D of P should have seen this as natter and located instead the pc’s overt. That would have improved a case and spared an order.

Sometimes such data can be very convincing. In administration at long distances or in life one can’t always get the right data and so issues an order hopefully. But in auditing, the factors are fewer and under better control. And so incomplete or false data is easy to detect.

THE GOOF

In Clay Table work of all kinds the pc must label everything he or she makes.

The word “everything” runs up against one of Man’s favourite aberrations. Man crunches things up, condenses, goes all out for togetherness or sameness. His Epitaph should be “It’s all the same.” Identifying things with things causes Man to call a number of things one thing. (He also is fond of calling one thing a number of things when he worsens on this point.)

I’ll show you how this works. Auditor’s Report: “The pc labelled everything.” Actual fact: The pc made a representation in Clay composed of 15 separate pieces, made one label giving all fifteen one name. Auditor’s complaint: “The pc isn’t progressing—no cognitions.”

In this case the auditor conceived the clay layout to be the “one thing” the pc said it was and had the pc “label it”. The pc did. One label.

Now the auditing direction in Clay Table work is to label every thing. The GAE was failing to get everything labelled.

Instead of figuring out some new process or angle to the case, all that would have been necessary was to get a complete, accurate description of the session. “Exactly what did the pc do?” And it would have transpired that the pc made “a picture”. “Was it labelled?” “Yes.” “What was it labelled?” “The pc labelled it ‘Catastrophe’ which is the word we were working on, of course.” At that point a smart D of P, Case or Auditing Supervisor would have figured it out. “How many things were there in the picture?” “Oh, about twenty.”

And the correct auditing direction would have been, “Go back and have the pc make the picture again if you’ve re-used the clay. And this time have the pc label everything—thing, piece, item—made. Got it? One label for each different bit of clay in the picture.”

That done, the pc’s case falls apart as the pc sees this or that should or shouldn’t be in the picture or why it is.

So the biggest goof in all processes is not doing the process.

And in C.T. work, the surest way in the world not to do the process is to let the pc make something and not get the pc to label it. And a thing of many parts must have a label on each part.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6411C17 SHSpec-47 “Styles of Auditing”

[Reference: HCOB 6Nov64 “Styles of Auditing”.]

Getting the different auditing styles clarified and formalized will make learning to audit easier.  Over the years, many auditing styles have developed to deliver different processes.  Repetitive commands came in in 1955-56, along with TR’s.  Muzzled auditing followed, to handle auditors who messed up PCs with interruptions, comments, etc.  More recently, with LRH’s work on the comm cycle and the discovery that auditors weren’t really listening, listen style was developed.  For prepchecking and sec checking, where you steer the PC around, another style was developed: guiding style.  Now that we have all the processes, all the styles are there, in order of developing an auditor’s skill, as he goes up the levels.  The higher you go, the more precise your auditing is, but also the higher you go, the more sloppy your auditing may look.  

At the level of R6, the PC is going through so much and changing so fast that the auditor has to be able to shift and change rapidly in order to keep up with the PC and his mind, and in order to do just what is necessary to keep the PC running down the bank.

A PC has to be up aways to be able to have all-style auditing.  For the PC to be up to standing all-style auditing would require a high level of confidence in auditors and acquaintance with different styles of auditing.  So the unpredictability of all-style auditing would throw the PC off, if this was the first style he had encountered.  Auditing the PC at lower levels would give him more certainty.  If you ran R6 on raw meat, you might get away with it, but the first mess you got into would be the end of the PC.  He’s got no confidence in auditing and no reliance on scientology’s ability to handle PTP’s, to fix him or rescue him, etc.  There is a case factor also preventing a new PC from being audited on R6.  The worse off someone is, the more “important” he is and the more exaggerated his ideas of his ability are.  He’s got hidden standards, out-confront, etc., etc.  There isn’t much you could do if you put the PC on R6 and he spun, so don’t do it.  You are making yourself the effect of his bank.  Most people start their auditing in total desperation, in fear of going out the bottom.  Getting up to the point where they know that they won’t get any worse (Release) is a major improvement.  It doesn’t necessarily take a long time to do this.  You might tend to overrun the PC unless you observe well and note the acceleration of gain that occurs. Don’t cut off PC cogs.  Furthermore, you are handling a level of case that is voluntarily trying to improve, which means that there is some spark of responsibility for self-improvement and some idea that the person can do something about it.  People can go so far downscale that they think nothing can be done about anything.  Then you get a socialist or a communist state to take care of them.  One reason why governments call scientology a fake is that they have the opinion that nothing can be done, [and scientology is claiming that it can do something].

Through a PC’s course of auditing, we must keep the PC winning so that “self at cause” keeps coming up.  It is easier to make someone better than to make him worse.  He resists getting worse but doesn’t resist getting better. When he realizes that he can and must do something to get better, and that he will not get worse, be will be a Release.

The auditing styles can be plotted against the most likely win for the PC at a given stage of his auditing.  How you audit a PC is at least as important as what you audit.  Just the mechanics of auditing are therapeutic, regardless of the process they are applied to.  First the PC discovers that he can talk to someone.  Then he discovers that he can answer a question when he is asked one. there is some 8C in this that is beneficial, as well as duplication, which he has fallen away from.  He can’t be anything, because he can’t duplicate anything.  Unless you have gotten someone out of this kind of condition, he can’t confront existence.

A thetan can only be what he can see.  He can only see what he can duplicate.  It is hard to get duplication of an accident or a crime, because a person can’t be it.  Therefore, he can’t see it.  This leads to a “slight occupational liability as an auditor.  You are looking at a PC, all the time, that you don’t particularly want to be.  You’re trying to improve him, aren’t you?!  Fortunately, it isn’t necessary for you to be willing to be aberrated, to get well,” because we have the whole anatomy of the reactive bank, and there is no sense in it.  If the PC hadn’t made the reactive mind and the GPM’s, he would be virtually unaberratable.  There would be no dwindling spiral, because the thetan would have to determine to have something wrong with him.  A thetan had to decide to be aberrated.  He did it, but almost accidentally.  Having done it, he was too stupid to get out of his trap.

There are different degrees of aberration, based on the locks and the tendency of the reactive mind to group, bunch up, and get into restimulation. There are some basic things that can go wrong with a thetan, which are above the level of the bank and GPM’s.  These include duplication and communication.  Duplication and communication can be aberrated, regardless of end-words.  There are end-words there too, but these are high-level ideas common to all thetans, with or without banks.  A PC should be able to communicate and duplicate pretty well.  They do improve, up to the point where he can confront his bank.  At Level 0, the PC knows that he has communicated because the auditor received the communication.  At Level I, the PC knows he has received a communication, because he has answered it and the auditor is satisfied with the fact that he has answered the communication.  If the auditor lets the PC receive a communication or question that he doesn’t answer, the PC is unsatisfied, because, knowing that he didn’t answer the question, he starts doubting his ability to receive a communication.  At this level, he finds that not only can he answer a question, but also he can answer it repetitively.  This is a big change for many people.  When a PC can answer a question repetitively that is even better than just being able to answer a question.  That is why we say, “I will repeat the auditing command.”  [See Abridged Style below.]

Guiding style.  At this level, we are handling the PC’s finding out that there is something there.  To the PC, the whole world is reasonless.  He is starting out at a lower harmonic of the truth, namely that there is nothing there and that he has no reason to be upset about anything.  He says, “I feel nervous today,” and sees no cause for it.  The biggest cog here is that there are causes for things.  For one thing, he will realize that he is not just natively stupid or that life doesn’t have to be a mess.  Something could be causing the condition he is in.  The PC needs to get the idea that conditions don’t just happen, but are caused by things, and that be is “no longer just a pawn.  If things cause things, you might be able to predict.  If things cause things, you might be able to do something about something.  If things cause things, you might be able to do something about yourself!!!”

Guiding Secondary Style.  This comes out of guiding style auditing. Steer plus itsa is the process that goes with it.  You find it and bleed it (Remedy A and B).  Level II locates causes.  Without knowing the cause, a person is dispersed all over the universe.  Finding the cause, and then doing something about it, is terrific.

Abridged style.  When he has learned all that, it is safe to run him on an abridged style.  We can look and see what is going on.  The reason why, at Levels I and II, you always say, “I’ll repeat the auditing question,” when the PC hasn’t answered it is that you are teaching the PC that he can receive and answer an auditing question.  At Level III, this is not necessary anymore, and it may be irritating to the PC.  He already knows that he can get the command.  So you have abridged style, in which the auditor and the PC can look and see what is going on.  This is an abridgement of lower, not upper styles. The PC says he has a PTP.  You don’t guide him into it.  You just ask, “What is it?”  It usually blows, so you then drop it. The PC can as-is things more easily now.  You audit purely against a finite result to the point of getting to happen what you want to have happen and no further.  The PC learns that when he gets audited, something happens.

Direct style.  Now we’ve got direct style auditing.  Getting the exact result applies even more, here.  You go direct to the result. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Co-audit	
SCIENTOLOGY 0

LISTEN STYLE AUDITING

There are two ways to run Listen Style Auditing—1. As a number of teams directly under an auditing supervisor and 2. As an individual auditor. Correct training procedure at Level 0 is to have the auditor do co-audit style until confident and then train him to do the same thing individually.

LISTEN STYLE CO-AUDIT

The Co-audit version is merely to get the student to do auditing without having to assume too much responsibility.

In this version it is really the instructor who is doing the auditing. He starts the session and tells the auditor to give the commands and acknowledge the answers. If this relationship is understood it makes the supervision of a Level 0 group of teams much easier.

The procedure for running a Listen Style Co-audit is as follows:

1. 	Instructor gets the auditors to seat their pcs in their chairs and then sit down.

2. 	He writes up on a board the exact wording of the process to be used.

3. 	He asks students if the room is alright for them to be audited in.

4. 	He tells them what is going to be run in the session (R Factor) and cleans up any questions on the part of pcs (obviously, stress is on getting them able to talk to anyone).

5. 	He tells auditors and pcs that all the auditor is permitted to do is to give the command and acknowledge the answers. If pc says anything that cannot be handled with an acknowledgement the auditor will put out his hand behind him and wait for an instructor.

6. 	He tells the auditors to keep their auditor’s reports.

7. 	Instructor then says “Start of Session”. And tells the auditors to give the command. No goals or rudiments are set or done.

Notes: Students should be taught that before they give an acknowledgement they should understand pc’s answer. They are permitted therefore to ask pc to amplify an answer or to explain a word so that they (the auditors) understand the answer.

If a student puts out his hand the instructor goes to session and without ending it handles what needs handling and then lets session go on. The instructor is careful not to become the pc’s auditor completely as transference will set in and pcs will invent trouble to get more attention. Instructor should have a meter handy so that in the case of an ARC Break he can quickly do an assessment. In doing the ARC Break Assessment he is of course careful not to audit the pc, only to locate and indicate the by-passed charge.

At end of period, Instructor says “Commence ending your sessions.” He waits a bit and then says: “Tell your auditor any gains you’ve made in the session. Auditors write them down.” Waits again and then says “Alright, I’m going to end the session now. End of Session.” Instructor then gives whatever instruction is necessary either to end the period or to get the room ready for the next period or gives a break, etc.

LISTEN STYLE, INDIVIDUAL

This is done exactly the same as the Co-audit version but in this case of course the auditor handles the session. It goes like this:

1. The auditor seats the pc in his or her chair and then sits down across from the pc, knees a few inches from the pc’s. A table is used, or just two chairs, the auditor’s report being kept on a clip board. There is, of course, no meter.

2. The auditor takes the exact auditing command to be used from his text book, bulletin or notes.

3. He asks the pc if it is all right to audit the pc in the room and if not, makes things right by adjusting the room or location of auditing.

4. He tells the pc the purpose of such sessions (Reality Factor) “I want to get you used to talking to another.” “I want to improve your reach,” etc. It’s the auditor’s goal at this level, not the pc’s. Pcs don’t get a chance to have goals in Listen Style as they would set goals they can’t attain at this level and wouldn’t have enough reality on auditing anyway to be sensible about it. So, only an R Factor is used—no goals. The auditor also tells the pc exactly how long the session will be.

5. The auditor tells the pc that all he is going to do is to listen and try to understand the pc, and that all he wants the pc to do is talk on the selected subject the auditor will give him and that if he veers off, the auditor will call it to his attention.

6. The auditor then quickly starts his auditor’s report.

7. The auditor says “Start of Session”.

8. The auditor gives the command from his text, bulletin or notes. The command must have something to do with telling people things or communicating, and may also specify a subject to talk about.

9. Further commands are given only when the pc loses track of the subject and wants to know what it was (see Routines for Level 0 for exact handling of commands).

10. When the pc says something and obviously expects a response, the auditor signifies he has heard, using any normal means.

11. When the pc says something the auditor doesn’t grasp, the auditor asks the pc to repeat it or amplify it so that the auditor does hear it in the fullest sense of the word. (See “The Prompters” below. Only 4 are allowed.)

12. When the pc stops talking, the auditor must adjudicate whether the pc is simply no longer interested in the subject, or has become unwilling to talk about some bit of it. If the auditor believes the pc has stopped because of embarrassment or some similar reason, the auditor has The Prompters, the only things he is allowed to use.
Prompter (a) 	“Have you found something you think would make me think less of you?”

Prompter (b) 	“Is there something you thought of that you think I wouldn’t understand? “

Prompter (c) 	“Have you said something you felt I didn’t understand. If so, tell me again.”

Prompter (d) 	“Have you found something you haven’t understood? If so, tell me about it.”

(The student must know these prompters by heart.) He uses as many as needed, in the sequence given, to start the pc talking again.

The auditor must not start a new subject or process just because the pc can’t bring himself to go on talking. The whole essence of Level 0 is to get the pc up to being willing to talk about anything to anyone. Thus any coaxing is also allowed. Threats are forbidden. (a) (b) (c) or (d) usually handle. These are the commonest reasons people cease talking. Mere forgetting is handled just by reminding the pc of the subject.

13. New Processes (or new subjects in a Routine which are in essence new processes) are started only when the pc has brightened up and become quite able by reason of getting comfortable about the last one. Realizing that the whole target of Level 0 is to get people willing to talk about anything to others, a regained ability on a subject governs when to start a new process. If the auditor can answer to himself this question in the affirmative, then he can go to a new process, “Is this pc able to talk freely to or about (subject of last process)?” If so, it’s all right to select a new question from the same routine or a new Routine (more rarely) and ask it now. But it is never all right to prevent a pc from talking by butting in with a new question. One never asks amplifying questions at Level 0. Commentary type questions are also out. The auditor listens to the question’s answers and only interrupts when he truly hasn’t heard or didn’t grasp some point. No over and over repetitive use of commands is made, of course, as that’s Level One. The Commands are given rarely, same commands, but only to get the pc going again. Staccato repetitive commands and brief pc answers are not for Level 0.

14. Toward the end of the auditing period, the auditor warns, “The session time is about over. We’ll have to be ending shortly.”

15. When the pc has given an extra comment or two, the auditor says, “We’re closing the session now. Time is up. Have you made any gains in this session?”

16. The pc’s answers are quickly noted.

17. The auditor says, “End of Session.”

Note: Pcs of course often keep on talking and make it hard to end a session. End it anyway. If this seems to shock the pc, point out the time the session ended as originally set and say also, “You’ll be getting more auditing and we’ll take that up in the next session.” You’ll always have trouble ending a session if you fail to put in its time in the R Factor (Reality Factor) in 4 above. As the auditor notes the time in his report (see 4 above) he must say, “This session will go until________(hours and minutes) precisely.” Thus he has an out for ending it. An auditor must never run beyond that time set, and must, of course, audit until it is reached. This, by the way, does not just hold good for Level 0. It is very good practice for all levels in regular sessions. The only exception is the assist where one is auditing toward a definite gain. In general auditing one seeks to obtain general gains not sudden momentary spurts.

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

The auditor, whether in co-audit or individual session at this and the next level, will soon become impressed with this fact: the more he himself says during the session, the less gain the pc gets. Therefore, aside from the above, the auditor does very little in the session and is paid handsomely for it in pc gains.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 DECEMBER 1964

Remimeo 
Franchise 
Sthil Students 
Sthil Co audit
SCIENTOLOGY 0

PROCESSES

The whole case gain to be expected from a pc at Level 0 is an increase of ability to talk to others.

At Level 0 we do not expect or lead people to expect any sudden miracle of physical or mental recovery. Rather, we emphasize that we are getting their feet on the ladder and as they progress up through levels they will achieve all they ever hoped for and more.

Jumping to higher levels leaves the lower level disabilities untouched and while trying to audit somebody at, say, Level III, we will find ourselves struggling with things that should have been handled at Level 0.

Further, this target is the one that beginning pcs make the most gains on in my experience. I recall one near miracle on a girl who couldn’t bring herself to talk to her parents and all I did was get her to tell me what she’d say to them if she could talk to them.

Recalling is too steep for a starting pc. They can’t recall well really until about Level IV when they can be cleaned up on their ARC Breaks with Life.

Here we have the whole design of Level 0:

“Recover the pc’s ability to talk to others freely.”

If you realize that a pc can’t be in session unless he is willing to talk to his auditor, you will also realize that he can’t be in life until he is able to communicate freely with others.

Thus any process that does not forward this end is not for Level 0, no matter how frantic the case may be to become clear yesterday.

The more hysterical a pc is about getting advanced processes or a case gain, the less strenuous the process administered must be. The psychiatrist erred on this one point and it wiped him out as a social benefactor. The more desperate the case, the more desperate were his measures. He was just echoing his patients. It is very important for an auditor to realize this one datum for it is the second guiding rule of Level 0. It is a very senior datum. One must not become desperate and use desperate measures just because the pc is desperate or the family or society is desperate about the pc. The worse off the pc, the lighter the approach to that pc must be.

Psychotics (real, gibbering ones) are below auditing treatment in sessions. The measure used for them should be just rest and isolation from their former environments. And the first process used should be just getting the person to realize you are safe and safe to talk to.

So, although a few cases are psychotic, this still holds good. The auditor must get the pc to realize he is safe—won’t punish, scold, reprimand or betray confidences—and that the auditor will listen.

It doesn’t give the auditor a withhold to not speak of another’s withholds. One can only withhold what one oneself has done. What the pc did or said isn’t even subject for a session on the auditor for withholding it had no aberrative value.

Even when we’re Class IV, we still start all our pcs at the pc’s level, which is, for a beginning pc, Level 0.

So what we are trying to do with our pcs at Level 0 is the following:

1. 	Recover the pc’s ability to talk to others freely;

2. 	Teach the pc by example the auditor is safe to talk to and won’t scold, reprimand, punish or betray, and

3. 	Refuse to engage in desperate measures just because the pc is desperate; and therefore get a real, lasting gain for the pc.

ROUTINES

A routine is a standard process, designed for the best steady gain of the pc at that level. The remedy is different. It is an auditing process which is designed to handle a non-routine situation. The only real remedy at Level 0 is patching up having failed to hear or understand the pc. The rest is all done by routine. The Case Remedies are at Level II and while we all realize that every Level 0 case needs a lot of Level II remedies, we also know that no remedy will work well until the pc is able to talk to others. When you run into trouble at Level 0, there are only 3 reasons possible:

1. 	The pc was not run in a direction or on a process to improve his or her ability to communicate to others;

2. 	The auditor failed to understand the pc’s statements, either words or meanings; or

3. 	The auditor engaged in desperate measures, changed processes, or scolded or did something to lower the pc’s feeling of security in the session.

That’s all. As you go on up through the levels, you will find many other ways a pc can get upset. But at Level 0, the pc is not close enough to reality on his own case to even be touched by these at first. The pc is a long way off when he first starts getting audited. He can only approach his own case by degrees. So a pc, no matter how wildly he or she dramatizes at Level 0, is really only capable of a reality of the smallest kind about self. And such a pc must be able to talk before anything else can happen. Pcs can be ruined by someone who doesn’t grasp that simple fact. Psychiatrists, failing to grasp it, murdered several million people—so it’s no light matter. It’s an important one.

A pc at Level 0 usually can’t even conceive of an overt (a harmful act) done by himself. When they can, they go religiously guilty and seek to atone or some such thing. Become a monk. Or commit suicide.

The reason 33 1/3 percent of all psycho-analytic patients are said to have committed suicide in their first three months of treatment is not that they “came too late” but that a lot of wild data was thrown at them to get at their “source of guilt” and they went head on into the reactive bank, sought to demonstrate their “guilt” by making others guilty and killing themselves.
You don’t want anything out of the pc but an increased ability to talk relaxedly to others without fear, embarrassment, suspicion or guilt. So all processes at Level 0 are arranged accordingly.

WORDINGS

To give all possible wordings of routines that will accomplish the above is completely beyond need.

Once you have the idea of it straight, you can invent them by the dozens.

One doesn’t even have to think of a particular pc. All Level 0 processes are good only when they apply to all pcs.

ROUTINE 0-0 (Zero-Zero)

The starting routine is the most basic of all auditing routines. It is simply “What are you willing to talk to me about?” Pc answers. “What would you like to tell me about that?”

At Level II, the first question alone becomes a remedy. Here the two questions make a routine—and a very effective one it is!

ROUTINE 0-A

This is how the auditor puts together Routine 0-A:

1. 	Make a list of people or things one can’t generally talk to easily! That includes parents, policemen, govemments and God. But it’s a far longer list. The auditor must do this. It must never be published as a “canned” list.

2. 	Using any one of the listed items: “If you could talk to____(listed item) what would you say?”

All right, that’s all there is to finding the commands for Routine 0-A.

One doesn’t get the pc to do the list. The list isn’t done in session. The auditor does it himself on his own time. And each auditor must do his own list for his pcs and add to it from time to time as he thinks of new ones.

The pc isn’t necessarily given any choice of items. The auditor picks one he thinks may fit. That’s easy to do after one session. The pc keeps complaining about parents. OK. Run 0-A on parents.

And flatten it!

By flatten is meant to use that one subject until the pc is darned sure he or she could now talk to the item chosen. If the pc still wants to abuse the item, it isn’t flat. If the pc still wants to do something about the item, it is not flat. When the pc is cheerful about the item or no longer fascinated with it, it’s flat.

Remember, there’s no need to find out what the pc can’t talk to. In fact, most cases you’re better off just to take an item of your own for 0-A and use it. May seem strange, but you’ll have a smoother time of it with the pc. Further you’ll not restimulate (churn up) the pc’s bank so hard.

ROUTINE 0-B

The second routine consists of things to talk about.

One puts the routine together this way:

1. 	The auditor makes a list (not from the pc but himself) of everything he can think of that is banned for any reason from conversation or is not generally considered acceptable for social communication. This includes non-social subjects like sexual experiences, W.C. details, embarrassing experiences, thefts one has done, etc. Things nobody would calmly discuss in mixed company.

2. 	An item from the list is included in the auditing command, “What would you be willing to tell me about     ?” Add the item you choose.

3. 	When they have “run down” (as in clocks) ask them, “Who else could you say those things to?”

4. 	Rechoose a subject on the list.

5. 	Repeat 3.

6. 	Continue to repeat 4. and 5.

Above all, don’t be critical of the pc. And very calmly hear and seek to understand what the pc said. (You never, by the way, seek to find out why the pc reacted or responded in some way. A real blunder at Level 0 is “Why did you feel that way?” Or “Why do you think you can’t say that?” You’re not after the causes of things at Level 0. You will find out why at Level VI!) At Level 0, just keep them talking while you listen. And you use only the subject chosen to keep them talking.

ROUTINE 0-C

Routine 0-C is, of course, old R-1-C renamed. It is done without a meter and it has any subject under the sun included in its command. It is elsewhere covered.

In all the above routines it is vital not to alter the commands given above.

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

There are many more possible routines. But to be a Level Zero Routine it must have as its goal only freeing up the ability of the pc to talk freely to others.

This is not a level to be regarded with a brush-off. It takes a lot of skill to restore a pc’s ability to communicate freely.

When an auditor has that skill he will succeed at all higher levels.

When a pc has that skill regained, his world will look to him to be a far, far better place.

So it is very important to get over this first hurdle. And very important not to dodge it and try to climb the hill anyway. It will become an awfully steep hill.

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

6412C15 SHSpec-49 Communication: A Gradient on Duplication

Level 0 and Level I are laid out, and the materials exist for Levels II, III, IV, and VI.  [See HCOPL 11Dec64 “Full Table of Courses and Classifications”.] The PE course is back down below Level 0, and the HAS course is in the academy, with a strict curriculum.  It includes axioms and other bits and pieces.  HQS is what old HCA/HPA was.

When you go all the way to the top, it is then very easy to see what lies between you and the bottom.  That is what has happened.  Mow we can see what an auditor has to go through and achieve to get all the way up.  Unnecessary parts of training have been eliminated without leaving gaps that people could fall into.

You can tend to discount how much auditing you have had, when you get up near the top.  That would be one reason why you would think you could take a new PC and run him at once on R6, thinking that he is where you are, as a case, when he isn’t.

A person who is “perfect” and has no problems:

1.  Is very delicate.

2.  Commits overts.  

The case who never finds anything to audit because he is “perfect” must be audited very delicately.  A person may get a full complement of motivators from something, yet still assert that is was right.  If such a person were to admit to or confront a single little fault, i.e. give up a service fac, it would be, to him, the final degradation.  He is very overty, but he is at a point where, if he admitted that he had ever done anything wrong, he would slip over the edge of degradation that he has been clinging to and start asserting his rightness by being even wronger, like a kid breaking windows who keeps on doing it, trying to assert the rightness of what he is doing. Manifest insanity is a confirmation of an error.  You have to increase the case’s responsibility by a series of steps.  The only trouble you have had with PCs has come from not going up through the steps necessary to keep the PC winning, getting gains that are real to the PC.  The Book of Case Remedies is the totality of Level II (overts and PTP’s), but the PC has to be gotten up to the point where he can be run on the processes in The Book of Case Remedies.

There are certain things senior to the bank, on which a thetan would be able to be aberrated, whether he had a bank or not, though without a bank, the thetan could get unaberrated again without auditing.  The design of the bank is what gives the thetan the dwindling spiral.  But if a thetan weren’t aberrated and had no designed reactive mind, he could determine to spin in on a spiral, now that he has that skill, because he has done it.  But he couldn’t have realized how much trouble he would get into.  He is capable of miscalculating, which is a fascinating ability to have.  The thetan is natively capable of getting into more trouble than he can see.  A thetan is capable of having these things happen or making things happen to himself.  He is capable of setting up masses to suspend in time.  The masses -- GPM’s -- create time.

But it is difficult for a thetan to aberrate himself to such a degree that he can’t recover.  The only way he could recover is to block out duplication.   (Cf. the Axioms: that which you don’t as-is will endure forever.)  If a thetan is unwilling to duplicate something, it will endure. The only way a thetan can erase something is to be willing to duplicate it. E.g., if you are unwilling to be like a person, you will get madder and madder at the person, to the point where he will disappear, not by being as-ised, but because you can’t see him anymore.  He is still there.

Thus you have a universe.  A thetan is nothing, and he is unwilling to be something, so you get masses, and they endure because the thetan won’t as-is them.  So he makes a bank, which tells him what he should and shouldn’t be willing to duplicate.  This bank had two halves:

1.  The cowboys in the white hats, which he was willing to duplicate (so they disappeared).

2.  The cowboys in the black hats, which he wasn’t willing to duplicate (so they became more real and solid).  This leads to the dwindling spiral.

Communication can be a lower gradient on duplication that leads to more willingness to duplicate, as well as the other way around.  The rough part of the bank is duplication.  You could take some other part of the comm formula, drill it, and start to knock out the duplication hang-up.  With communication, you might get over the obsession not to duplicate, without getting an obsession to duplicate.  You knock out the ferocity of, “Don’t ever be that!”, as when you say to yourself, “I must never never never be a bum on skid row,” [and then you must obsessively duplicate the bum by becoming one.] You get out of compulsive and inhibited actions by communication.  If a person can’t stand the thought of an auto accident, he won’t be able to duplicate a car, communicate with it, or control it, and he will crash.  The remedy would be to have him touch a car.

This shows why touch assists and processes of communication with aberrated body parts, or whatever, are so effective.  “You become what you resist.”  In other words, “That which you are unwilling to duplicate will persist and eventually overwhelm.” This is not to say that you have to obsessively duplicate either.  Mere experiencing of something is non-therapeutic.  Communication with something is therapeutic.  If you are afraid of being an alcoholic, don’t try it out.  Communicate with alcoholics or with something relating to this subject.  Then the refusal to duplicate clicks out.  Give the alcoholic a bottle or a glass to communicate with.  But don’t let him experience it.  Run reach and withdraw on it, or on photos of skid-row bums.

Wilson, a newly-appeared political figure, has a 48 hour comm lag between his saying, “I will never ... “  and his doing it.  He is nearly nuts, and never notices that he is doing this.  If he’s “agin” it, he is going to be doing it to be it.  “Why was I so angry about it yesterday?  I’m it!” “The bank says that 50% of existence must be shunned ... and the other 50% is, ‘Love it!  Gotta be it!  Cherish it!’  So, of course, the universe will eventually become the 50% you mustn’t have anything to do with.” You do not have to experience something in order to duplicate it.  The things that bug you are the things you mustn’t be or have anything to do with.  And if you can’t comm with something, you can’t hold it off.  How do you keep one boat from smashing another if you mustn’t have anything to do with a boat hook?  

There are gradients in the field of duplication.  Making drawings is a duplication and telling about them is communication, so that would help out a kid who was having trouble.  You could get him up to drawing what he didn’t like about school, drawing school in 3D, etc. [Cf. Play Therapy, in which the kid is encouraged to “demonstrate”, with toys, the various aberrative parts of his life.] Just don’t make it too steep a gradient.  Having to experience is an out-gradient.  You collapse terminals with the thing that you are experiencing.  How can you hold anything off if you can’t communicate with it?  [Also, if you can’t duplicate something, you can’t handle it.] Putting it all on a communication activity would be less likely to go too steep.  8C is a steep process, because it asks the PC to communicate with MEST, which is the one thing he doesn’t want to duplicate.  Also, this process is run duplicatively.

Therefore, communication -- like, with the cowboys in the black hats -- is the key that unlocks duplication.  It is what you monitor a case by and what you try to solve first, not only with regard to levels, but also at the beginning of every session.  You could use a gradient of duplication, instead of a gradient of communication, though it is hard to assess the gradient properly, using duplication, and the PC will hit too steep a gradient and blow.  If you approach the whole thing on a communication gradient, you will give the PC a very gentle gradient.  “Communication” as a word, happens to be part of the reactive bank: an end-word.  But this doesn’t matter.

However, just because you have gotten the PC past Level 0, it doesn’t mean that you have got rid of his reactive mind or his peculiarities as a thetan.  You will never get rid of the latter.  A cleared thetan, without a bank, will still have slump spots, centered around communication, duplication, making things, unmaking things, persistence, any value that time might be, and value there is to experience, etc.  He will make and unmake pictures of things.  He will have an aberratable pattern that isn’t planned.  Then he could just look at this small aberration, and it would as-is.  He as-ises things very easily because he doesn’t have it all hanging on earlier similars in a bank.  There are certain factors in a person, regardless of his experiential track, for instance the fact that “communication knocks out refusals to duplicate.”  This comes up in a lot of cognitions.  A non-duplication decision goes along with non-communication actions.   8C is hard because “you’re asking him to communicate with MEST, and that is the one thing he will not be....  It makes quite a process.”  8C also handles unwillingness to duplicate.  A clever auditor always reestablishes the PC’s communication where it ought to be, before going on to do anything else.

So if a PC is not in comm, you must find out why.  We know the key points: withholds, PTP’s, and overts.  They all have out-of-comm to them.  An overt is a regretted communication.  A PTP is a started but not completed, and thereafter refused communication.  A withhold is an unwillingness to communicate.  If you partially communicate, with an unwillingness to communicate, you’ve got a missed withhold.  This is a particular kind of problem.  

A broader look at this area is given by the fact that the PC has a PTP because he is unwilling to duplicate something or someone.  You’ve got to be careful not to throw the PC into the bank with no gradient.  If the PC gets misemotional, you are on an out-gradient, because the person is experiencing something, rather than communicating.  Push a person into a situation where there is a no-duplication decision and no communication with that, and: Powie!  He interiorizes into that very point.  This can also throw the PC into GPM’s and end-words of duplication and communication and their negatives. Communication is the solvent that handles non-duplication.  As you audit the PC normally, you’ve got a destimulative factor:  you are putting the PC more thoroughly in comm with his bank, without throwing him into it, i.e., without experiencing it.  If you skip the communication, you will get the obsessive duplication, the experiencing, the dramatization.  You could develop a process that would do this to the PC.  One such process would be, “What wouldn’t you mind going out of ARC with?” A more direct one would be, “What don’t you like?  Duplicate it,” though the latter would be therapeutic on some PC’s. Or, by making a guy wrong, you can prove to him that he is duplicating something that he has said he would never duplicate.  This is the psychiatric approach: “You hate your father, so you are being him, aren’t you?”

The reason why you can’t just process a PC all the way North with communication is that you have to pay attention to the complexity of the bank, e.g. service facsimiles.  The bank is complex enough, so that the PC will have to confront and undo it.  You have to pay attention to the PC’s physical peculiarities.  The PC is going to run into some corner of the bank, and you have to pay attention to it.  You must find areas that the PC can as-is and walk him into them.  But you are not just auditing the PC vs.  the bank. There is the environment, full of other people’s banks, etc.  So you have to make a fast gain.  You have to have enough of a gradient so that the PC knows that he has made a gain, and enough gain so that he won’t get squashed before the next session.

You can get rid of bad habits in the PC, not by a direct attack on them, but by a general comm process, washing out all unwillingness to duplicate. [If a thetan could duplicate, he wouldn’t need a habit to handle it.  Cf. earlier data on a circuit as a substitute for confront.  See p. 47, above.] A person getting extricated from his own bank is also mixed up with other banks.  Also, he is still eating.

Don’t advise people to experience life.  If you find some guy that is awfully slow to bring up the line, why, don’t bring him up yourself.  He has had plenty of time to do himself in, and some people have simply done a better job of it than others.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 DECEMBER 1964
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Co-audit	
SCIENTOLOGY ZERO

(Corrections to HCO Bulletin of 11 December 1964,
“Processes”, and to HCO Bulletin of 10 December 1964,
“Listen Style Auditing”)

ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED)

An additional command increases the usefulness of this routine. It is therefore rewritten as follows:

The auditor makes a list of things people generally can’t talk to easily. That includes parents, policemen, governments and God. But it’s a far longer list. The auditor must compile this list himself or herself out of session. It may be added to by the auditor from time to time. It must never be published as a “canned list”. Scientology Instructors and Scientology Personnel should not be listed on it as it leads to upset in sessions.

STEP 1. The auditor chooses one of the subjects off the list and uses it in Steps 2 and 3 below until the pc is comfortable about it. Subjects from the list can be chosen in sequence or at random. A chosen subject is not left until the pc is comfortable about it. By this is meant, the pc would not feel disturbed talking to the subject chosen.

The auditor does not ask the pc which subject or if it is all right to choose that subject as the pc at the moment of selection is not likely to feel comfortable about any of the listed subjects and so will just reject. No, the auditor just chooses one and starts on it.

STEP 2. The auditor asks, “If you could talk to______(chosen subject), what would you talk about?” Pc answers one or more things at greater or shorter length.

STEP 3. When the pc seems satisfied the question has been answered, the auditor then says, “All right, if you were talking to______(chosen subject in 1 ) about that what would you say, exactly?”

The pc is expected to speak as though talking to the subject chosen in l.

STEP 4. The auditor notes whether pc is comfortable about the subject chosen in Step 1, yet without asking pc. This is done by noting the voice tone or text of what the pc would say. If it is shy, diffident, or if it is belligerent or annoyed, the same subject is retained for a new go with Steps 2 and 3. If the pc seems bright and cheerful, a new subject is chosen from the list for a working over with Steps 2 and 3. If the subject in 1 is retained, the auditor again does Steps 2 and 3 above over and over until the pc is cheerful. A subject chosen in 1 is not left until the pc really can respond cheerfully. When this is accomplished, a new subject is chosen as Step 1 and the process is continued with Steps 2 and 3 using the new subject.

The whole of Routine 0-A is flat when the pc feels far more comfortable about talking to specific items and isn’t shying off from items on the list. It is flat, therefore, when an ability is regained on specific items on the list and the list items aren’t producing big new changes in the pc’s communication ability.
LISTEN STYLE CO-AUDIT

It is expected that by the time an auditor is permitted to do the Zero Routines, Individual Listen Style will have been entered upon.

Until the class seems able to run individual sessions, old “R-1-C” can be used by the auditing supervisor on a group basis using Listen Style Co-audit until the group has the idea of sessions.

Routines work best on Individual Listen Style. The pc is always wondering, in Listen Style Co-audit, if the auditing supervisor is listening to him personally. The auditor is not the receipt point of the pc’s comm in many instances.

Old R-1-C is the best training mechanism to get auditors to run sessions. In this process the auditing supervisor just chooses something for all the pcs to talk to the auditors about, like a dynamic or a common social problem.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

My Philosophy

by

L. Ron Hubbard

The subject of philosophy is very ancient. The word means: “The love, study or pursuit of wisdom, or of knowledge of things and their causes, whether theoretical or practical.”

All we know of science or of religion comes from philosophy. It lies behind and above all other knowledge we have or use.

For long regarded as a subject reserved for halls of learning and the intellectual, the subject, to a remarkable degree, has been denied the man in the street.

Surrounded by protective coatings of impenetrable scholarliness, philosophy has been reserved to the privileged few.

The first principle of my own philosophy is that wisdom is meant for anyone who wishes to reach for it. It is the servant of commoner and king alike and should never be regarded with awe.

Selfish scholars seldom forgive anyone who seeks to break down the walls of mystery and let the people in. Will Durant, the modern American philosopher, was relegated to the scrap heap by his fellow scholars when he wrote a popular book on the subject, The Outline of Philosophy. Thus brickbats come the way of any who seek to bring wisdom to the people over the objections of the “inner circle.”

The second principle of my own philosophy is that it must be capable of being applied.

Learning locked in mildewed books is of little use to anyone and therefore of no value unless it can be used.

The third principle is that any philosophic knowledge is only valuable if it is true or if it works.

These three principles are so strange to the field of philosophy, that I have given my philosophy a name: SCIENTOLOGY. This means only “knowing how to know.”

A philosophy can only be a route to knowledge. It cannot be crammed down one’s throat. If one has a route, he can then find what is true for him. And that is Scientology.

Know Thyself . . . and the truth shall set you free.

Therefore, in Scientology, we are not concerned with individual actions and differences. We are only concerned with how to show Man how he can set himself free.

This, of course, is not very popular with those who depend upon the slavery of others for their living or power. But it happens to be the only way I have found that really improves an individual’s life.

Suppression and oppression are the basic causes of depression. If you relieve those a person can lift his head, become well, become happy with life.

And though it may be unpopular with the slave master, it is very popular with the people.

Common man likes to be happy and well. He likes to be able to understand things, and he knows his route to freedom lies through knowledge.

Therefore, for 15 years I have had Mankind knocking on my door. It has not mattered where I have lived or how remote, since I first published a book on the subject, my life has no longer been my own.

I like to help others and count it as my greatest pleasure in life to see a person free himself of the shadows which darken his days.

These shadows look so thick to him, and weigh him down so, that when he finds they are shadows and that he can see through them, walk through them and be again in the sun, he is enormously delighted. And I am afraid I am just as delighted as he is.

I have seen much human misery. As a very young man I wandered through Asia and saw the agony and misery of overpopulated and underdeveloped lands. I have seen people uncaring and stepping over dying men in the streets. I have seen children less than rags and bones. And amongst this poverty and degradation I found holy places where wisdom was great, but where it was carefully hidden and given out only as superstition. Later, in Western universities, I saw Man obsessed with materiality and with all his cunning, I saw him hide what little wisdom he really had in forbidding halls and make it inaccessible to the common and less favored man. I have been through a terrible war and saw its terror and pain uneased by a single word of decency or humanity.

I have lived no cloistered life and hold in contempt the wise man who has not lived and the scholar who will not share.

There have been many wiser men than I, but few have travelled as much road.

I have seen life from the top down and the bottom up. I know how it looks both ways. And I know there is wisdom and that there is hope.

Blinded with injured optic nerves, and lame with physical injuries to hip and back, at the end of World War II, I faced an almost nonexistent future. My Service record stated: “This officer has no neurotic or psychotic tendencies of any kind whatsoever,” but it also stated “permanently disabled physically.”

And so there came a further blow . . . I was abandoned by family and friends as a supposedly hopeless cripple and a probable burden upon them for the rest of my days. I yet worked my way back to fitness and strength in less than two years, using only what I knew and could determine about Man and his relationship to the universe. I had no one to help me; what I had to know I had to find out. And it’s quite a trick studying when you cannot see.

I became used to being told it was all impossible, that there was no way, no hope. Yet I came to see again and walk again, and I built an entirely new life. It is a happy life, a busy one and I hope a useful one. My only moments of sadness are those which come when bigoted men tell others all is bad and there is no route anywhere, no hope anywhere, nothing but sadness and sameness and desolation, and that every effort to help others is false. I know it is not true.

So my own philosophy is that one should share what wisdom he has, one should help others to help themselves, and one should keep going despite heavy weather for there is always a calm ahead. One should also ignore catcalls from the selfish intellectual who cries: “Don’t expose the mystery. Keep it all for ourselves. The people cannot understand.”

But as I have never seen wisdom do any good kept to oneself, and as I like to see others happy, and as I find the vast majority of the people can and do understand, I will keep on writing and working and teaching so long as I exist.

For I know no man who has any monopoly upon the wisdom of this universe. It belongs to those who can use it to help themselves and others.

If things were a little better known and understood, we would all lead happier

And there is a way to know them and there is a way to freedom.

The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth, and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.

6503C02 SHSpec-53 Technology and Hidden Standards

“Economics and organizations are a matter of the MEST universe.  Let me give you a tip:  If someone around you or your organization is having trouble with organizational matters, you just processed them subjectively too long. It doesn’t matter how long you process them subjectively now.  They are not going to go anyplace.  The trouble with them is objective.  You want to give the objective-type processes, not subjective.”

Organizational tech is being formed up into courses for the business world.  It has taken two to three years to plow this line.  Now that we have a product to put on the line, it will go like a crash.  Dissemination techniques have been worked up out of the materials of scientology, which have only to be written up and issued.

LRH has found all the points where organizations don’t expand and found what makes them not expand, what contracts them, etc.  You end up with formulas that you can give to the janitor to apply to his job, and he will look them over and see that they make sense.  His willingness to work was jammed by his ignorance of the law that governed that work, under its various conditions.  All you have to do is to know and use the formulas.  If you apply them backwards, you shrink and collapse.

It is no longer a question of our arriving before everything blows up. We have made all our deadlines.  The questionable period is behind us. Organization is important to build scientology up to civilization level.  Our intentions are good, so we will make it.  It is now a foregone conclusion that we will make it.  As soon as the materials are in your hands, you can’t help but make it.

In the human race and in the mind, there is a barrier called the hidden standard.  “When anyone is critical, they are apparently criticizing against a hidden standard of behavior.  They seldom tell you what ... “  the behavior should be -- only what it shouldn’t be.  Or, if they say what the behavior should be, it is in antipathetic terms.  There is no definition of a “normal” person.  [Hence “abnormal” is defined against a hidden standard.]

The communist ideal would be anonymous.  This is weird.  A person who is doing a job should make known that he is the one doing it.  If someone isn’t known, he gets no reward.  It is possible to develop odd tests for deciding what is good or right, e.g.  choosing a doctor for appointment to a hospital on the basis of his sports career.  “Examination and selection of personnel gets into trouble continually, for lack of a ... proper standard.”  The hospital blames the medical school for not training good doctors.  But the hospital is setting up a hidden standard and blaming the school for not delivering, without saying what they want delivered.  Marriages are made miserable by the hidden standards that spouses run on each other.  They don’t make clear what they want, when they say that they want a “good spouse”. E.g., the wife says, “You are not an adequate husband.”  The husband says, “I guess I’m not an adequate husband,” but the wife’s standard remains hidden. She doesn’t describe it to him.  You could handle marital problems organizationally by finding hidden standards.

Auditors come up against this often.  “You, as an auditor, have to face up to PCs who are running a hidden standard on you all the time.”  What you are looking at is not really a standard, but a perverted standard.  It is not a real standard.  “Nobody’s ever acknowledged this standard [and that] holds it apart from the time track.”  The auditor should acknowledge the standard, so that it doesn’t get parked on the time track.  “The standard is the collection of non-acknowledgments [that the individual has].  If you want to end a cycle of action, acknowledge.  If you don’t want to end a cycle of action, don’t acknowledge.”  In auditing, if you don’t want to end a cycle, you half-acknowledge, as a way of keeping someone going.  A full acknowledgment of a cycle ends it.  Non-acknowledgment keeps it going.  That is why people tend to get uglier, not prettier.  No one ever says, “My, you look ugly today!” One reason why a person gets fixed on human bodies is that no one said, “Oh, I see you are a man, this lifetime!” This datum is very applicable to registrars, as well as auditors.  “If you acknowledge the person before he arrives, ... he won’t arrive.” Nobody will appear for training or processing, if you acknowledge heavily.  The right way to handle a letter from someone who announces his intention to come for training or processing is to be courteous and not too definite.  Give some information, but not solid acknowledgments.

People generally work towards a beingness.  They don’t function so well just being a post.  This is a question of acknowledgment, which ends cycle on the post.  “Retirement is an acknowledgment of [a person’s] total active life;” it ends the life.  In many cases, it ends life in any form.  Military commissions act as an invitation to overthrow one’s superiors, because a commission is not granted by saying, “Thank you for having been a (lower post).  You now have the right to work toward (commissioned post).”  A corporal would function much better if, on attaining his new rank, he were to be congratulated, not on being a corporal, but on having been a private, and on having attained the right to work towards becoming lance corporal.  If a person’s rank or position is bestowed as an accomplishment, rather than as a challenge or a becomingness, then the cycle has been ended before it began, by being prematurely acknowledged.  “The only way a person can get in trouble is to be George Smith, while he’s pretending to be [his post.  There is the post, which] is a set of beingnesses and lines and actions and policies all by itself, ... and there’s a being, who runs the” set of beingnesses, lines, actions, and policies which is the hat.  George Smith must not operate as George Smith, when he is supposed to be being or attaining, say, the post of D of T.  There is a hat, and then there is a being who runs the hat.  To get a hat on, you must put it in a category of being in the process of being attained.  Once it is attained and acknowledged, it ends.

So, as an auditor, you have to be careful what and how and when you acknowledge.  If Arthur says that he has had a horrible day at school, LRH doesn’t acknowledge with, “Good!” He would use something more sympathetic and really acknowledge it, so that it could go onto the backtrack.  You have the power to put someone’s past on the past track and to give them a future.  If you want to kill them dead, acknowledge everything with a crash.  This gives them no future.  Be a little doubtful about someone’s future plans.  Don’t use certain, solid acknowledgments.  Then give the discussion a good acknowledgment.

Recognize that a datum like this, with a lot of uses, could easily “gang agley”, on the back track.  It would get perverted, messed up, etc.  From this datum could arise such things as hidden standards and amnesia.  Getting shot is too solid an acknowledgment of a lifetime, so one forgets it.  That is the basic mechanism behind non-recall of past lives.  Things that aren’t acknowledged, because they are totally out of agreement, while the good things are acknowledged -- these unacknowledged things bring about a condition where everything disappears out of the person’s past except the non-acknowledged things that people thought were silly, or that they protested, or that they were upset about.  “This gives you a decay of personality as a person ... moves along the” time track, whether the person has GPM’s or not, though without GPM’s, the person could do and undo the aberrations, almost at will.

A person should know that he has a tendency to collect all those things that were never acknowledged.  That is because the individual has some dependency on the comm formula.  As long as a person has any desire to communicate, he will be liable to malfunction of certain parts of the comm formula.  And when these parts go awry, things do go weird.  A person could regulate his conduct by knowing what parts of the comm formula were good, and what parts were bad -- which parts would natively get him into trouble and which wouldn’t.  “If you’re gonna associate with your fellow beings, ... you’re ... going to have to use the communication formula,” one way or another.  You will have to know how it works, the part that acknowledgment plays, etc.  The comm formula can have things go wrong with it, so there is a potential for native aberration.  There is a direct source of direct aberration plus the native aberration of beings.  The two can work together. GPM’s, which are agreed-upon aberration, can hold lesser stuff (native aberration, e.g. failed acknowledgments, etc.) in place and give them aberrative force and importance.

Insanity could be two things:

1.  The person’s collection of unacknowledged things.

2.  Outright GPM commands to be nuts.

A crazy person is doing a lot “of things that have never been agreed with, and therefore have never been acknowledged.”  [You don’t have to agree with something in order to acknowledge it.] Where you have both factors working together, the GPM’s make the unacknowledged things very solid and very much in force.  You know that the PC will run into aberration of this sort at Levels VI and VII. [The latter is power processing.] He runs into the collection of non-agreed-with things.

The bank itself has lots of charge.  The non-agreed-with things (locks) carry very little charge.  The PC assigns the values wrong-way-to, especially at first, because he assigns aberration to what he can confront.  So you’ve got:

1.  The bank.

2.  The accidents and incidents of livingness.  

The power of these two is eight billion to one.  But it appears to be the reverse, because that is all the thetan can confront.  You can key out the locks and pat the bank back into place.  This in itself is a fantastic improvement over what anyone has been able to accomplish before.  There are hidden standards about what we are supposed to be accomplishing.  Nobody will admit that you have reached any state, because they have never told you what state you were supposed to reach in the first place, amongst your fellow human beings.  This kind of a cycle takes place:  You finish the PC up in a session; he feels good.  Then he runs into the human race after the session.  They run a hidden standard on him and try to make him prove that he is now in a better state.  

The hidden standard interferes with delivery.  There is no point in talking to someone about clear or release.  You’ve got to talk scientology in terms that are real, in relation to the goals of the person to whom you are talking, or you will trip all over his hidden standards.  About the only standard you could have for clear is F/N at clear read.  The standard for release is, “Do you think that you will get any worse?” People have hidden standards about who you should be to audit them, what condition they should be in, in order to have had a case gain, etc.  You could run, “Who would I have to be to audit you?” and acknowledge the dickens out of it.  For any condition you have described as a better condition in scientology, there is a hidden standard.  And a hidden standard exists even for known standards.  For instance, you say, “We require a pink sheet,” but they keep bringing you green ones, saying, “Is this what you want?” What happens is that the individual, with his concatenation of non-acknowledged ideas, adds up to a non-observational point.  He can’t observe from this point.  He can’t tell where he is or what you are saying to him about how he should be, etc.  [Cf. earlier material on service facs as a substitute for observation, “safe assumptions”, etc.  See HCOB 6Sep63 “Scientology Five -- Instructing in Scientology Auditing:  Instructor’s Task; D of P’s Case Handling”, HCOB 160ct63 “R3SC Slow Assessment”]

The PC will keep trying to bail himself out, provided you don’t overwhelm him with things to bail or give him nothing.  Just give him things to bail with, within his understanding and ability to confront, and he will eventually float.  In that way, you don’t Q and A with his hidden standards.

“You never realize how much better you are than yesterday, because you are experiencing negative gain.  [It is] no longer wrong with you, so of course you are not now worrying about it.”

Just attesting a level and getting a certificate acknowledges the entire level: the session, the auditing, etc.  The attestation keys it out and puts it on the back track.  This way also, the PC doesn’t get stuck in a win, a hidden standard.
Because of hidden standards, the only safe way to evaluate case progress is a mechanical method, such as a meter, and a completed cycle of processes. It so happens that if the PC does complete the cycle of processes, he will have case gain, and this can be strung out along levels with such basic processes that you don’t have “different” PCs all the time.

An unwritten standard is hidden.  You may feel that there is a hidden technical standard.  This is an alter-is.  What has happened is just that there is material that has not yet been released.  Nobody is trying to hide any technology.  Your best answer to the PC’s hidden standards is to hold to your standard technology and just take the PC on up the line with no Q and A.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MARCH 1965
Issue II
Remimeo	
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Staff	
ALL LEVELS

BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES
APPLICATION OF TECH

A sure road to award and glory is to find a new application for an existing Scientology process or principle or book.

The period of the discovery of principles, processes or original works is surely over as we have everything between the snake’s stomach and the high sky by way of natural laws. Inventing and using new processes is a sure way to slow down the advance. There were only so many anyway and it’s been done.

But new ways to apply or disseminate what we’ve got are welcome, welcome, welcome. We’ve not nearly enough of those and we’ll be inventing or seeing them for the next umpty trillion years.

So my hat is off to Beth Fordyce, HCO Area Sec Detroit, U.S.A., who informed us via U.S. Continental of a new use for The Book of Case Remedies for which she’ll receive a bow and appropriate award, to wit her DScn.

Here is her report.

“At the January D.C. Congress, I had some interesting data about The Book of Case Remedies that you (HCO Cont Sec U.S.) thought I ought to write up for Ron because you felt he’d be interested in it. Here it is.

“We’ve had several instances where people have read the remedies and come in to tell me that certain ones ‘fit’ them. Then when they started to tell me which ones specifically, they couldn’t remember them—or they would be able to remember only one. The book obviously indicates by-passed charge, and handles most of the problems. They find out what their problem actually is.

“One fellow who has been ARC broken with Scientology for years (even before I heard of Scn), came in and I asked him to find himself in the remedies. He started reading them, and each one seemed to fit him (except about 3 or 4 of them). I noted them down one by one, as he called them to me. When he finished, I said no more about it.

“Later on—about 15 minutes—he decided he’d better look through those again because he ‘was sure that they didn’t all fit—maybe some of them have changed’. So he went through them again, one by one, and only 3 still seemed to apply—and only ONE of them was strongest, he felt. The other two seemed to have lost their punch.

“He was quite different after that. I also did what the remedy called for, which cleaned it up. The last time I saw him—at our Congress—he not once mentioned the problem he’s always had with eye-spots. (And, frankly, I was afraid at that point to say ‘eye-spots’ to him for fear he’d key it back in again, so I just settled for HIS not mentioning it ! )

“As soon as we get our next batch of Remedies, I intend to send at least 4 of them as gifts to people who are badly ARC broken with us. If they actually read them, I know exactly what will happen—they can’t stay ARC broken.

                                 					Best,
                                   					Beth”

So there’s a wide open door. Try it out on “rough cases” and demand ARC Broken ones do it and write you back or tell you which one it is.

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

6503C09 SHSpec-54 The New Organizational Structure

Expansion shows up weaknesses.  It is like turning on a magnifying glass.

The problem that a person has, who is not doing well in business, is that he is being and not doing.  To understand an org, you must understand the formula of life:  Living is having and following a purpose.  [“Livingness” has to do with the doingness of life.]

Here is a further test of an org:  Could you take a central org pattern and reduce it to city office size [See above, for description of what a city office is.], and have it still work?  If the big pattern doesn’t smoothly reduce, it won’t smoothly expand.

Brief org structure:

Div 1: Idea.  HCO: Issues data on processing.

Div 2: Management.  Training and processing services.

Div 3: Pick up and police.  Collects money and takes care of MEST.  They are interlocked, so they stick together, but:

Divs 1 & 2 don’t organize MEST.

Divs 2 & 3 don’t handle communication.

Divs 1 & 3 don’t train anybody in anything.

The ED of each board is the assistant ED of another board, higher in the hierarchy and located elsewhere.  He judges only on statistics.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MARCH 1965 
Remimeo 
Sthil Students 
Sthil R6 Co-audit
Scientology 0
Scientology VI

WORDS, MISUNDERSTOOD GOOFS

It has come to my attention that words a student misunderstands and looks up can yet remain troublesome. And that R6 materials are suffering from the same fate when meter activity lessens.

It’s this way: The student runs across a word he or she doesn’t understand. He or she looks it up in a dictionary, finds a substitute word and uses that.

Of course the first word is still misunderstood and remains a bother.

Example: (Line in text) “The size was Gargantuan.” Student looks up Gargantuan, finds “Like Gargantua, huge.” Student uses “huge” as a synonym and reads the text line “The size was ‘huge’.” A short while later is found still incapable of understanding the paragraph below “Gargantuan” in the text. Conclusion the student makes—”Well it doesn’t work.”

The principle is that one goes dull after passing over a word one does not understand and brightens up the moment he spots the word that wasn’t grasped. In actual fact, the brightening up occurs whether one defines the word or not.

But to put another word in the place of the existing word, whether in Level 0 or Level VI is to mess it all up.

Take the above example. “Huge” is not “Gargantuan”. These are synonyms. The sentence is “The size was Gargantuan.” The sentence was not “The size was huge.” You can’t really substitute one word for another at Level 0 or Level VI and get anything but an alteration. So something remains not understood at Level 0 and the meter stops at Level VI. It just isn’t what was said or thought.

The correct procedure is to look over, get defmed well and understand the word that was used.

In this case the word was “Gargantuan”. Very well, what’s that? It means “Like Gargantua” according to the dictionary.

Who or what was Gargantua? The dictionary says it was the name of a gigantic King in a book written by the author Rabelais. Cheers, the student thinks, the sentence meant “The size was a gigantic king.” Oops! That’s the same goof again, like “huge”. But we’re nearer.

So what to do? Use Gargantuan in a few sentences you make up and bingo! You suddenly understand the word that was used.

Now you read it right. “The size was Gargantuan.” And what does that mean? It means “The size was Gargantuan.” And nothing else.

Get it?

There’s no hope for it mate. You’ll have to learn real English, not the 600 word basic English of the college kid, in which a few synonyms are substituted for all the big words.

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

And as an “aside” (like they use on the stage), may I say that golly some people have to reach a long way to find goofs.

(The data in this HCO B was given to me by Mary Sue Hubbard and called to attention by Ian Tampion.)

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6503C16 SHSpec-55 The Progress and Future of Scientology

In 1950, people used to yammer at LRH about fixing up the organization. He was caught flat-footed when DMSMH was published.  No one expected it to be a best-seller, but it was.  And it stayed at the top of the list for months. The publishing firm that published it was overwhelmed by it.  When others set up the foundation and asked LRH to run it, he said, “OK.”  But he had no management control.  He proposed some ideas then, which are only now being put into action.  Until about July, 1950, his attitude was, “Well, I just wrote it.”  The name “LRH” was getting very popular, but he was trying to avoid the hat.  But he was setting the place up, giving eight hours or so of lecture a day, getting the building, the furniture, etc.  The building had three main railroad lines -- one on each side.  LRH used to fix up PCs that other auditors couldn’t handle.  He started the HAS course, using the data straight out of Book One.  The students all went onto the original HCA course.

The word “Hubbard”, in “Hubbard Dianetic Auditor” and in other titles, was chosen by the Elizabeth and L.A. auditors.  LRH went along with it, with certain misgivings.  A few days before the publication of DMSMH, Palmer, at the Explorer’s Club, offered LRH an expedition to the Dodecanese Islands, south of Greece, to find a sunken ship with statuary.  The deeper into 1950 it got, the better the expedition looked!  The organization took more and more of LRH’s time.  LRH was still telling people this kind of thing.  The general manager said to LRH, “You must front up the organization.  These people are depending on you.”  LRH found out that Joe Winter was squirreling, telling people that dianetics was developed by some nonexistent group of scientists and that auditing was an art with nothing scientific about it.  Contemporary subjects were things like psychodrama [Moreno et al.]; these things looked good, but they didn’t work.  

So two hours after the first meeting [of the Dianetic Foundation?], LRH put his time on the line and took responsibility for the development of the subject, rather reluctantly.  He wasn’t prepared to make his life an open book, because it was too incredible for people to believe, and they would call him a liar.

LRH is not in bad favor with Washington senators, etc.  In 1955, if he had wanted to, LRH could have gotten legislation passed that would have protected scientology.  The FBI was very nice, when he wanted to find out who, out of about 200 staff people, were communists.  They told him who were not communists: about thirty out of 200!  There was an airplane waiting to take LRH to St. Louis and put him in a spin-bin.  Fortunately, the people who were sent to get him weren’t as well trained in combat as he was.  He took care of them.  This all occurred subsequent to LRH taking on his hat.  It has taken fifteen years to get to a state where the hat could be worn, because LRH’s hat assaults the foundations of the society we live in by talking about freeing Man, bettering Man, etc.  Ours is a philosophy that says that people can’t be lied to -- that we can see through the black magic spells.  This is an interesting civilization, because people don’t know who they are, where they are, where they are going, or what they are doing.  You start laying truth on the line, and confusion starts to blow off.  The early days of dianetics followed that rule.  We got through it, because, in July [1955], LRH wore his hat of being him, and no one has been able to throw him off it since.

LRH is also capable of occupying a subordinate role.  LRH worried for awhile that he was one of those guys who can only lead and cannot follow. However, he was delighted to find out, in the Navy, that he was also an excellent subordinate.  But to occupy a top-dog role ... all the way up -- you know: there’s no government or any mystic vision back of you -- and confront everything simultaneously, and stand there regardless of the dead cats, the alarm clocks, and bricks, and everything else which are coming your way ... -- that took some doing:  And that’s all you look at when you look at this early history. [It was] a stable datum, going into a very very aberrated world.... From where I looked, it looked awful lonesome, occasionally.  It [took] some doing,” and some confront.  We have changed things in the world.  We have changed psychology, for one thing.  It wasn’t done alone.  Early staffs took a beating at times, e.g. in Philadelphia, when fifteen or twenty cops came to arrest LRH as a witness in a bankruptcy hearing.  By the time the Federal Marshalls got to LRH, they were utterly demoralized.  They took him downtown, before a judge, and there was great embarrassment, when the lies from the Wichita Foundation were uncovered.

But we have been standing still, waiting for the dead cats to clear from the air.  Our early history is that of trying, at first unsuccessfully, to just hold a position.  Putting in dianetics as a stable datum blew off enough confusion in the society so that we could move.  For a long time, it was impossible to hold a position stably.  Hence the way the early Foundations moved around.  LRH was standing there as a being, but as an organization, we couldn’t stand up.  LRH’s idea was to do his research and get it to the point where there was dependable gain there for every case -- easily attainable and deliverable.  He paid no attention to the dead cats.  That may have been rough on people.  The group has been asking him to advance a line into society, while he has been fixing up the technology so that it could be delivered.  He has kept organizations running, but he has not put much time in on organization, comparatively.  

In the early days, “the reason we didn’t deliver was that there was no way to enforce the way to do it.”  Dianetics got enturbulated because unstraight tech, poorly delivered, prevented case advance.  And “there wasn’t any way you could discipline the administration of the technology.”  To discipline the administration of the tech, the following is required:

1.  You’ve got to have the technology, and not hidden standards.

2.  You’ve got to be able to make it known.

3.  You have to police its use, i.e. to make sure that it is that technology that is applied.
That is the 1-2-3 of an administration.  Early on, we lacked not only the tech to handle simple things, like O/W and PT concerns of the PC, but also the means to see that what we did have got applied.  Dianetics was not, and we are not, just an idea, a book, a copyright, or a nice philosophy lying in a book on a shelf.  We are bringing live human beings up to recognition of their own beingness, and that is a live action.  We don’t face it, because it is easier to confront a concept than a live being.  We have never been anything but beings, going through society.  When we started up the line, it was the enturbulation of the trillions starting to blow.  We had more ways to knock out the whole track than to get the overt out of the last hour.  We had started to make a hole in the collective aberration of mankind.  It was we, as beings, making the hole, not the idea, not with good tools, not with administration to enforce what tech we had.

You are perfectly right to say, “It’s Ron’s fault that it didn’t all go smoothly.”  “I should have been an OT who came to earth and got ahold of someone named Moses and said, ‘Hey, Moses!  Here are some rules.  Now you go back and front for me.’  Is there anything wrong with that story? Can you imagine anyone doing that, if he had all that power?  No, no!  This didn’t happen.  It just required more nerve to stand up by yourself.”

The people who attacked us are dead or in terrible shape.  The organizations that attacked us are weaker.  We have held the fort successfully, and we can now begin to do what we want, rather than what we have to do.  We are holding our position as an organization now.  We are able to get tech applied.  Our organization takes the form we want it to take.  In 1950, LRH said, “It will go as far as it works.”  He has been pushing the tech to its limit, despite pleas to take over the admin.  “Things are becoming more orderly.”  Now LRH is in a position to put in administrative form and structure.  We had gotten ourselves to a position where we were holding ourselves from expanding.

Now the instructor can wear his hat, in the course.  “The action of administration is simply smoothing out the enturbulence of the environment.” When you introduce someone to scientology, he can run into lots of confusion with the other people in his environment.  He has changed, and they haven’t. As an individual, he goes through what scientology, as a group, has gone through.  However, it won’t take him fifteen years to get up to a point where he can hold his case gain!

There is a terrific relationship between the environment, the individual, and the speed with which a process works.  The earlier auditing on a case is “a race between the auditor and [the PC’s] environment.”  That was true of the introduction of dianetics and scientology into the environment, also.  That was also a race.  

The guy who has an early win in scientology tells his friends, and confusion blows off, which may spin him in.  He gets inval, etc.  He has put in a stable datum and can’t hold his position in the resultant confusion.  You’ve got to get a process working on somebody, that is effective enough so that the environment won’t knock him down faster than you can pull him up.  You have to deliver to him the kind of technology that he can somehow stand up with.  You must not unsettle him, e.g. with R6.  You want him to be stable.  Furthermore, you want to give him some administrative protection.  Today, you have been given weapons of administrative protection for your PC, as well as a method of forcing a PC to take action and not keep messing up in his environment.

We are more powerful and things are more stable than ever before, and will continue to be so, as long as we follow the channels of the administrative system, as long as our mutual understanding of the existing situation and the lessons of what we have been through are applied.  We have had lines that were blocked.  LRH is pulling out the blocks, now, putting in comm lines, etc.  The trick is to avoid unsettling lines that are already in and working.  The goal is an accelerating curve.  We are past the critical point of organizational case gain.  Now we can hold our gains.  Now we have to get in comm lines and put policy to work.  If you want to strengthen an organization, just find the blocks to expansion and pull them out.  Open up your comm lines, put your barriers on the edges of the lines to channel them, and put life into the group.

Last summer, LRH changed the whole org board to make it more workable. This action resulted in smoother flows and less upset.  We are about to complete that reorganization, without cutting out any working lines, but paralleling them.  Duplicative functions are being cut out, so there is less traffic.  All we ask of a staff member is to discipline his comm line.  There is no vast rush to get the tech all published.  We need to get the organizational lines in first, so that when we hit the society with new material, there will be lines for the traffic to flow on.
The levels checksheets and processes are ready for release.  The processes are simpler than you would expect.

Earlier technology was more advanced in some instances than later tech. For instance, the material in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course is Level VII material.  The old technology was workable, ever since Excalibur was written in 1938.  But the chances of it being received, followed, or applied were remote.  We are now moving ahead to some law and order, which smooths things out.  Man was too far down to know that he was confused.  Now he can come up through the confusion.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MARCH 1965 
Remimeo
Students	ALL LEVELS

ARC BREAKS

Great News!

I’ve found the basis of ARC Breaks!

As you know, only a PTP (Present Time Problem) can hold a graph unchanging and only an ARC Break can lower one. Therefore the Anatomy of an ARC Break is more vital to know, as it can worsen, than the anatomy of a PTP. But both are very important and with the overt act and misunderstood words in study form the vital four things anyone should know in auditing Pcs.

The average student has a hard time getting rid of ARC Breaks in others, mostly because he never really finds the ARC Break. One Auditor was sure a Pc had been ARC Broken by “the last few inches of a lecture tape” and was madly calling Washington to borrow the tape so the poor Pc could “listen to it again to cure his ARC Break” ! Well I don’t mind being cause, but my tape never ARC Broke the Pc. The Auditor just didn’t locate the Charge.

The whole trick is to keep cleaning up the ARC Break until the Pc is happy again and then quit. When you find it, that’s it. You don’t find it and still have an ARC Broken Pc! No, the terribly simple truth is that

1. 	The Pc is ARC Broken because something happened.

2. 	The Pc will continue to be ARC Broken until the thing is found.

3. 	The ARC Break will vanish magically when the source is found.

Finding the ARC Break and indicating it clears the ARC Break. If it doesn’t clear on what you find, then you haven’t found it !

You must not continue to run a Pc on some process when the Pc is ARC Broken. You must find the ARC Break and clear it.

The Pc will go into a sad effect if you don’t find the ARC Break but instead, continue the process. If you think you have found the ARC Break (and haven’t) and then go on auditing, the Pc will go into a sad effect.

ARC Broken Pcs are easy to identify. They gloom and mis-emote. They criticise and snarl. Sometimes they scream. They blow, they refuse auditing.

If you can read a lighted neon sign at 10 feet on a dark night, you can detect a Pc who has an ARC Break. Some Auditors can detect them sooner than others. I can see one coming in a Pc 11/2 hours of auditing before the Pc starts to get misemotional in earnest. Some newcomer in the business might not detect one until the Pc wraps a chair around the auditor’s head. As I say, the ability to perceive one varies. The better you are the sooner you see one. If an auditor’s Pc isn’t bright and happy, there’s an ARC Break there with life or the bank or the session.

The thing to do is find it and clean it up.

And now all is revealed: This is what makes an ARC Break occur:
AN ARC BREAK OCCURS ON A GENERALITY OR A NOT THERE.

The Generality

Example of a Generality

“They say you are cold-hearted.” “Everybody thinks you are too young.” “The People Versus Sam Jones.” “The will of the masses.”

Case Manifestation

Example: Little boy screaming in rage when he makes a mistake in drawing. Auditor observes little boy is upset. Auditor: “What are you upset about?” Little Boy: (howling) “My drawing is no good!” Auditor: “Who said your drawing is no good?” Little Boy: (crying) “The teachers at school (plural).” Auditor: “What teacher (singular)?” Little Boy: (sobbing) “Not the teachers, the other children (plural)!” Auditor: “Which one of the other children?” Little Boy: (suddenly quiet) “Sammy.” Auditor: “How do you feel now?” Little Boy: (cheerfully) “Can I have some ice cream?”

The Formula

1. 	Ask what the Pc is upset about.

2. 	Ask who thought so.

3. 	Repeat the generality the Pc used and

4. 	Ask for the singular.

5. 	Keep 3 and 4 going until the Pc is happy.

As it’s a near Q and A it should be awfully easy. They name prunes, you say what prune is prunes.

Result

It’s quite magical done barehanded or on a meter.

Errors

You can miss in English sometimes on YOU. The Pc says YOU are mean. We have no plural or singular signal in the word YOU. Therefore a statement that “YOU are ARC Breaking me” or “YOU ARE MEAN” may not mean, as an egocentric auditor may take it, the auditor but YOU may be being used as THE WHOLE WORLD. The above formula holds 1 to 5. Just find out “Which person is meant by the word you?”

Our old “Look at me, who am I?” was not too wrong.

So next time your Pc says, “The Instructors are mean,” don’t be goofy enough to indicate the charge with “OK, you are ARC Broken because the Instructors are mean.” And then be amazed when the ARC Break continues. You didn’t find out “What Instructor is Instructors?” If you ask a bit further you’ll find it probably wasn’t “the Instructors” but somebody else. And that somebody will be a unit, not a group.

A less workable but interesting approach is “Who uses the word ‘everybody’ frequently?” It’s of interest only because “everybody” makes a dispersal which the Pc can’t see through. It will take quite a while sometimes for a Pc to spot such a person!

How many people have died heartbroken because “they” were mean to him. And it was just one vicious being who had been blown up to “they”.

The Not There is also a generality because it can be anywhere. But it is a special case.

When something becomes unlocatable it can cause an ARC Break.

The cure for this one is to find out what’s gone.

If you see somebody with a cold, ask “Who’s gone?” and you’ll be amazed at the recovery if you pursue the matter.

One concludes it’s less the loss than not knowing where something has gotten to, making a one into a generality.

The common response to sudden loss is to feel everything is gone or going.

This is the state of anxiety explained.

The beaten and downtrodden respond well on this (when brought up through normal levels to the Level of Remedies).

A very sneaky question is “Who (or what) was everything to you?”

But use it sparingly. The Pc will go whole track like a flash if overworked.

Remarkably (at this late date to find it!) that’s why he rather fancies his pictures! At least he has a picture of it!

Dreams follow a sudden loss. It’s an effort to orient oneself and get something back.

Level VI ARC Breaks

Of course, there’s nothing wrong really with a thetan but his reactive bank. He can recover from the rest. And his reactive bank is full of generalities which explains the hard ARC Breaks of Level VI. But don’t tamper with Level VI if the Pc belongs at II. You can get enough locks off any day from normal life to cure the ARC Breaks you’ll encounter getting up to VI.

Main thing to know is: AN ARC BREAK OCCURS BECAUSE OF A GENERALITY OR A NOT THERE.

Fortunately it doesn’t always occur. Only sometimes. And when it does: Find the singular form of the generality.

In Admin particularly you save more executives that way. And in auditing you just don’t have failed cases or blows if you know it.

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

6503C30 SHSpec-56 ARC Breaks and Generalities

The problem of getting materials out has to do with LRH’s pen fingers and the short (only 24 hour) day.  Nevertheless, expansion is going rapidly.  What is interesting is the number of false data that you can get, that create a false impression.  For instance, you can get the datum that “they say”, when only one guy said it.  We were thrown a curve last year.  It was reported to LRH from at least two sources that the gradation program was unpopular.  In fact, the gradation program alone was responsible for last year’s organizational upsurge.  LRH let the gradation program wobble and modified it, whereupon a decline set in.  Most people think that it was the price shift at the start of the year that caused the decline.  But the decline was coincident with LRH leaving for vacation.  When investigated, it was found that registrars were using the confusion caused by the price shift to deny service.  They sold a lot of auditing, saying, “The price will be prohibitive in thirty days,” and everyone went into agreement with it.  The registrars also confused the public about what they could get with what, in terms of memberships.  Furthermore, there wasn’t a price rise.  The price dropped!

Unlike registrars in central orgs, LRH never talked about money.  Someone would come in to a central org thinking about auditing, and someone at the org who had money problems himself gratuitously gave the would-be PC money problems.  LRH never talked about money, yet people force a discussion of money on him.  If processing works, the person who gets it is more able to have money.  Since registraring to get money was never something that LRH had to do, he is considering removing interviews with the Reg as part of the Reg’s hat.  It must have been something added on the line that suppressed the inflow of money.  It must have been the selling.

LRH used to explain every datum at least nine times in a lecture, before study tech came out.  That got around misunderstood words, because the material was put in various ways.  When telling students to do something, he has found that they will do what he said, so he has to be sure that he tells them what to do very very clearly.  Instruction is basically trying to cover all of it so thoroughly that there are no gaps and no room for question on how to do it.  An old process gets all the quirks and weird ways to do it ironed out as it gets used.

People in the L.A. org got the odd idea that a Class VI auditor would only audit Level VI material.  No.  Class VI auditors can run Level 0, only they would use E-meters, assess for the exact thing to run, etc.  An auditor uses all the tools of the trade that he has mastered.  If a Class VI auditor were doing a touch assist on a burned area and he could see that the area was not getting better fast, i.e., that there was no TA on the process, he would know that the PC must have something connected with the injury, like a withhold or an overt.  Having the PC point to where it happened and where it is now is having him contact the environment and letting the whole incident come into view.  Now the touch assist can go to work.

Never accept rumor as something on which to base any action or decision, except to investigate.  Use statistics, which are particularities.  If you don’t have stats for each individual, you get chaos, because it is a generality.  An organization will cause ARC breaks amongst its staff, if you can’t get a statistic on everybody present, week in and week out.  People will protest an organization as a slave-driving system, in the absence of stats. The stat has to be on each individual, or it is worthless.  It must also be compared with former stats.  This is what it takes to keep some activity or organization going for a long period of time.  The Galactic Confederacy had a pretty good org board.  The org lasted eighty trillion years.  Its only flaw was not having any provision for change or improvement.  It had two billion staff members in the central org.  LRH set himself the problem of making an org board that could cover from one person to two billion.

When things aren’t staticized, you get rumors, injustice, and authoritarianism, because a generality is operating.  Earth organizations commonly attribute success wholly to the man at the top, when in fact he is only 60% or 70% responsible.  General MacArthur didn’t win the war, though he was a bright cookie.  In Korea, he didn’t win, because he wasn’t a good politician.  He disobeyed a condition formula.  He was in emergency and didn’t promote.  Public opinion is made out of someone’s hat.

The moral is, that when you try to explain a condition with generalities that do not apply, you muck up the whole situation.  That is how Russia will take the U.S.  They have better propaganda.  They are promoting communism, and who is promoting democracy?  Wilson and Johnson are reorganizing economies in a period of decline -- emergency -- when they should promote what they cam eventually deliver, be prepared to deliver it, etc.  They are advertising a crisis.  “If you don’t want to be something, don’t postulate it.” If you yell, “Crisis!”, you will get a crisis.  Apply the proper conditions formula.  U.S. business operates an though it is in a perpetual condition of emergency.  It uses heavy promotion, etc.  American businesses never apply the condition for normal when they get there.  So they never get out of emergency.

In emergency, you handle with a sledge hammer.

In normal, you handle with kid gloves.

All this has to do with dealing with what is actually going on.  But you can never find out what is actually going on from having just a mass of something.  There is nothing to compare it with.  You can only find out what is happening with the individual bits of something, never with the masses. You get in trouble when you generalize what should be particular.

In scientology, we do make general statements about men.  We can only get away with doing this because we have studied many individuals.  When we say about “men” is actually a description of a thetan.

There is another interesting fact about generalities.  We used to know fairly little about ARC breaks.  Now we know that “an ARC break is a generality that should be a particularity.”  It was a single, but it was called a many.  “Only an ARC break can worsen a graph,” during processing, which makes an ARC break more serious than a PTP:  “If there’s no graph change, there’s a PTP.”  There is nothing wrong with a generality per se, only with one that should be a particularity.  If you get a generality when asking for an ARC break, get the PC to particularize it.  You can fail to find the BPC by taking a generality as the BPC, instead of going on to find out who “they” is.  You would still have to get the specific “who”, and it may take several of these steps to get it.  E.g.:

Aud -- Is there an ARC break?

PC  -- Yes.  The instructors are mean to me.

Aud -- Who is “the instructors”?

PC  -- Pete.

Aud -- There is BPC.  Has he failed to answer you?, etc.

PC  -- No.  It is actually the students.

Aud -- Who is “the students”?

PC  -- Agnes ... I’d forgotten completely!  She said I was a lousy auditor, yesterday!  

“What is basically wrong with [the R6 Bank]?  All the GPM’s are generalities!” That is why people ARC break so hard on R6.  The above datum concerning generalities also solves loss.  The loss of something produces a generality of where it could be.  When you lose something, it could be anywhere, which makes it a generality.  This is a lie, so the person ARC breaks.  “One of the ways to cure yourself of a [loss] is [to] remember that [the thing that was lost] can only be in one place, not in thousands of places.  
“It’s an ‘everywhere’ that should be a particularity.”  [It gives the individual an unflat listing question about “where?”]

“The test of ‘What was the BPC?’ is: ‘When it is located, does the PC cheer up?’” If you have to locate it more, you haven’t found the BPC.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 APRIL AD15
Remimeo
BPI
Mag Art	ALL SCIENTOLOGY
Auditor Issue 8 
Franchise 
Sthil Students
THE ROAD TO CLEAR

I have just made a breakthrough in finding what a clear really is.

And we can certainly make it now.

The ROAD TO CLEAR is very definite and the state is very attainable today.

A clear has no vicious Reactive Mind and operates at total mental capacity just like the first book (“Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health”) said. In fact every early definition of CLEAR is found to be correct.

People have been unable to define release to their own satisfaction. I find now a RELEASE is a person who has been able to back out of his “bank”. The bank is still there but the person isn’t sunk into it with all its somatics and depressions. The E-Meter reads at the Clear read! The needle of the meter is floppy. This is a simulated clear. We called it a “keyed out clear” quite properly. But it isn’t a clear I know now, it’s a RELEASE. The person has been released from his reactive mind. He still has that reactive mind but he’s not in it. He is just released from it. He may go into it again but it feels good to be out of it. His IQ and ability rise and he is far more effective in changing his environment into a better one. The state is beyond homo sapiens by considerable.

This happens today before or at LEVEL V in most cases if the preclear has followed the grades and levels properly.

Just one level up from there, a rather long level and a rough one, is the state of CLEAR.

This is LEVEL VI. This level consists of several processes. The preclear (still a preclear) has to be able to audit to make it. It can’t be done for him, that was the hitch. All the lower levels can be done for him but not Level VI. That’s a technical fact. The preclear has to be able to handle Scientology technology to handle his own bank.

Level VI requires several months to audit through even with expert training.

But at its end, MAGIC. There’s the state of clear we’ve sought for all these years. It fits all definitions ever given for clear.

The state at the end of Level VI is not Operating Thetan any more than a baby is a Man.

Operating Thetan is several levels above clear. The bridge from clear to OT already exists and is found in Route I, in the book “The Creation of Human Ability”.

The reactive mind (and a rotten mess it is, too!) prevented pcs from doing Route I drills. It stood like a huge black spider between the person and his realizing his full potential. Trying to do Route I as given years ago with a Reactive Mind still in place was, to be blunt, not possible for a human.

Some people also get frightened of ridding themselves of a Reactive Mind. Having looked it all over now I can state that it is as much use as a sewer in the living room. It says the bad is good and the good is bad! It’s a slave maker and “stupidifier” and a body killer. Any time you think it has value, imagine trying to swim in the city dump or trying to fly with an anvil in each pocket, all the while saying, “This is exactly the right thing to do.”

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

What’s happened that caused the blunder is that a “keyed out clear” looked like a clear but was only a release. And one had to have a very precise map and the skill to walk through the still present dark barriers that existed unsuspected between “keyed out clear” and the real state of clear.

So CLEAR CAN BE ATTAINED. And further it is being attained right this minute by dozens of Class VI preclears. It will take them months to get there but they are soaring and will tell you so. One session on it sends them the equivalent distance that ten intensives did in their early auditing. Why? Because they did the earlier auditing.

The road was just a longer road. Man looks for the quick way, the one-shot way, the needle and the rocket to sudden glory. CLEAR takes now an exact progress over exact levels. And the way is not long really. But it could be a few years for some.

But what’s a few years if one is bargaining for Eternity?

The point here is that I’ve finally been able to tell you what it is and where it is and exactly how to get there. Sorry I couldn’t sooner. It took some time to find the way for you and communicate how to do it.

I always tell you as soon as I know. I tell you when I’ve goofed and where. Well here it is. That’s what a CLEAR is.

And it’s a road you can travel.

THE STATES OF BEING

A RELEASE is at the top of Level V.

A CLEAR is at the top of Level VI.

A THETA CLEAR is at Level IX.

An OPERATING THETAN is at Level XVIII.

Above Level VI there are no “mental auditing processes” as we know them. There are only various drill and familiarization processes like those in the “Creation of Human Ability” processes and the regaining of abilities one supposed one couldn’t ever attain.

That’s the road and road map.

The only real error I made was in believing the road was a bit shorter than it was.

The plan of going on to clear is to get processed up to Grade IV or V. Then, being a RELEASE and quite beyond the top range of most IQ tests, get trained rapidly up through from Level 0 to Level VI. And then audit up to Grade VI which is CLEAR.

(“Grade” and “Level” are the same but when one is a pc one has a grade and when one has a Level one is studying its data.)

There are about 3 or 4 intensives to a Grade (pc) up to Grade V. That’s perhaps 15 to 20 25-hour intensives. (15 to 20 weeks.) Then training as a student of the same material one was audited on from Level I to Level V. That’s six separate months worth of training. Then to Level VI (that’s only as a student at Saint Hill) which takes about 2-3 months usually. Then a year or less depending on how hard you work and at no further cost, to CLEAR.

The total of this is about two years and two months of continuous processing and training time.

The total elapsed time might be longer even up to 5 or 10 years depending on one’s own economics and all that.

The fact is that economics aren’t a real factor, contrary to what one might be thinking. For today the increase in ability at one grade of processing is capable of delivering an economic boost adequate to earn or obtain much more extra wherewithal than the auditing or training cost. Economic increase because of auditing and training is a sure thing today.

A faster route (but not quite as secure as you might think as one isn’t already a Release while studying) is to train from Level 0 on up only. I myself wouldn’t like to do that as it would be rougher and could be even slower than the Grade I to V pc then Level I to VI auditor route. But it could be done.

We’ve had 15 years of experience now. We had to feel our way, as Man has never had a road to clear. It’s been through totally new territory never before viewed by Man. Even the wise Tibetan only achieved Release and only after he invested 20 years of hard work at it at that.

From Release as a case on up to Level VI as an auditor is pretty easy. In fact the Grade-Level roadway is like walking in a pleasant countryside now. Oh, one has a few stumbles even on a gravel path but that’s part of it. The pioneer times are all over and the pioneer always has it rough.

The 49ers left a freeway to follow! So have we. It just took a while to build.

So that’s clear!

                                        					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 4 APRIL AD15
Remimeo
Franchise

ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS

The primary error one can make in ARC Break handling is to handle the pc with ARC Break procedure when the pc really has a missed withhold.

As some auditors dislike pulling withholds (because they run into pcs who use it to carve the auditor up such as “I have a withhold that everybody thinks you are awful ——”) it is easier to confront the idea that a pc has an ARC Break than the idea that the pc has a withhold.

In case of doubt one meter checks on a withhold to see if it is non-existent (“Am I demanding a withhold you haven’t got?”). If this is the case the TA will blow down. If it isn’t the case the needle and TA remain unchanged. If the pc’s nattery or ARC Breaky condition continues despite finding by-passed charge, then of course it is obviously a withhold.

ARC Break finding does work. When the pc doesn’t change despite skillful ARC Break handling, locating and indicating, it was a withhold in the first place.

The hardest pc to handle is the missed withhold pc. They ARC Break but you can’t get the pc out of it. The answer is, the pc had a withhold all the time that is at the bottom of all these ARC Breaks.

Scientology auditing does not leave the pc in poor condition unless one goofs on ARC Breaks.

ARC Breaks occur most frequently on people with missed withholds. \-

Therefore if a pc can’t be patched up easily or won’t stay patched up on ARC Breaks, there must be basic withholds on the case. One then works hard on withholds with any and all the tools that we’ve got.

ARC Breaks don’t cause blows. Missed withholds do. When you won’t hear what the pc is saying, then you have made him have a withhold and it responds as a missed withhold.

In short, the bottom of ARC Breaks is a missed withhold.

But an anti-social act done and then withheld sets the pc up to become “an ARC Breaky pc”. It isn’t an accurate remark really since one has a pc with withholds who on being audited ARC Breaks easily. So the accurate statement is “the pc is a withholdy type pc that ARC Breaks a lot”. Now that type exists. And they sure have lots of subsequent ARC Breaks and are regularly being patched up.

If you have a pc, then, who seems to have a lot of ARC Breaks, the pc is a “withholdy pc” not an “ARC Breaky pc”. Any auditor miss causes a pc blow-up. The auditor by calling this pc an “ARC Breaky pc” is not using a description which leads to a resolution of the case as thousands of ARC Break assessments leave the case still liable to ARC Break. If you call such a case that ARC Breaks a lot a “withholdy pc that ARC Breaks a lot” then you can solve the case. For all you have to do is work on withholds.

The actual way to handle a “withholdy pc that ARC Breaks a lot” after you’ve cooled off the last of his many ARC Breaks is:
1. 	Get the pc to look at what’s going on with his sessions.

2. 	Get the pc in comm.

3. 	Get the pc to look at what’s really bugging him.

4. 	Get the pc’s willingness to give withholds up on a gradient.

5. 	Bring the pc to an understanding of what he’s doing.

6. 	Get the pc’s purpose in being audited in plain view to him or her.

Those are of course the names of the first six grades. However, low down, these six things are all crushed together and you could really pursue that cycle in one session just to get the pc up a bit without even touching the next grade up.

Whenever I see a sour-faced person who has been “trained” or is being “trained” I know one thing—there goes a pc with lots of withholds. I also know, there is a pc who ARC Breaks a lot in session. And I also know his co-auditor is weak and flabby as an auditor. And I also know his auditing supervisor doesn’t shove the student auditor into doing the process correctly.

One sour-faced student, one glance and I know all the above things, bang!

So why can’t somebody else notice it?

Auditing is a pleasure. But not when an auditor can’t tell a withhold from an ARC Break and doesn’t know that continual ARC Breaks are caused by missed withholds on the bottom of the chain.

I never miss on this. Why should you?

The only case that will really “bug you” is the CONTINUOUS OVERT case. Here’s one that commits anti-social acts daily during auditing. He’s a nut. He’ll never get better, case always hangs up.

Unless you treat his continual overts as a solution to a PTP. And find what PTP he’s trying to solve with these crazy overt acts.

You see, we can even solve that case.

BUT, don’t go believing Scientology doesn’t work when it meets an unchanging or continually misemotional pc. Both of these people are foul balls who are loaded with withholds.

We’ve cracked them for years and years now.

But not by playing patty-cake or “slap my wrist”.

Takes an auditor, not a lady finger.

“Mister, you’ve been wasting my time for three sessions. You have withholds. Give!” “Mister, you refuse just once more to answer my question and you’re for it. I’ve checked this meter. It’s not a withhold of nothing. You have withholds. Give!” “Mister, that’s it. I am asking the D of P to ask the Tech Sec for a Comm Ev on you from HCO for no report.”

If skill couldn’t do it, demand may. If demand couldn’t do it, a Comm Ev sure will.

For it’s a no report!

How can you make a man well when he’s got a sewer full of slimy acts.

Show me any person who is critical of us and I’ll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate’s hair on end.

Why not try it? Don’t buy “I once stole a paper clip from the HASI” as an overt or “You’re a lousy auditor” as a withhold. Hell, man, people who tell you those things just stole your lunch or intend to empty the till.

Get clever, auditor. Thetans are basically good. Them that Scientology doesn’t change are good—but down underneath a pile of crimes you couldn’t get into a Confession Story Magazine.

Okay. Please don’t go on making this error. It grieves me.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 APRIL 1965
Issue II
Remimeo
All Instructors Hats
HCO Personnel Hats
HGC Auditors Hats
Sthil Executives
DIVISION 4
TECHNICAL

ACADEMIES RELATION TO HCO JUSTICE
STUDENT TRAINING

THE NO-GAIN-CASE STUDENT

Instructors MUST be alert for no-case-change cases on course and for “Withholdy pcs who ARC Break easily”, “blowy students” and “unstable gains” cases.

Even indifferent auditing on even a haphazard course causes good case gains.

The minority group of no-case-change in routine course auditing and “withholdy” is very minor. These categories contain all the students who disturb your course, are insolent to instructors, rant against rules, etc.

You are under no orders from me that you must please them but you are under orders to report such cases to HCO.

YOU ONLY USE DIFFICULT CASE OR STUDENT IN THE ACADEMY AS AN INDICATOR OF SOMETHING WORSE. You aren’t a staff auditor but an Instructor. You want proper auditor and case gain of course, and you’ll get it (providing when some student says IT didn’t work to find out exactly what the student did that didn’t work and you’ll find it was never what was ordered).

However, on cases that are very difficult, watch it! These difficult cases are more than cases. They mean trouble for you from that student and for your class in ways you wouldn’t look for. By concentrating on “tough cases” you miss the fact that you have a whole class to handle. If you want it handled, look rather at what these tough cases do to your class and handle the “tough case” in a way to protect your course, not to make their cases move.

IN AN ACADEMY, DON’T TRY TO HANDLE YOUR COURSE ENVIRONMENT WITH STUDENT AUDITING!

Handle your course environment with good data, good 8C and discipline and HCO Justice machinery.

Your students now have their old course regulations suspended. Instead, the Justice Codes are in. The students are Scientologists. Becoming students gives them no new rights. And it doesn’t remove their Justice rights either.

I’ve been through all you go through and I have found, by comparing conduct on a course to conduct in the field afterwards, that the turbulent student is a pc, not a student. He or she makes trouble. On the course and afterwards.

The total symptom that alerts you to such a person is “tough case”.

This is very easy to notice. Just look over the student case folders and note that one or another student doesn’t seem to get going. Note the folder you have to work on. That’s it. That’s your trouble spot on the course. DON’T judge students by “conduct” or speed of study. Judge on “tough case” only.

Routine auditing is good unless it’s been alter-ised. Routine processes work on good people.

The no-case-gain case makes you hunt for magical processes and fatally leads to alter-is. 

Now hear this:

 THE PROCESSES YOU HAVE, EVEN WHEN ONLY FAIR, ARE BETTER THAN THE PROCESSES THAT WILL BE DREAMED UP BY STUDENTS OR ANYONE AROUND YOUR COURSE.

The processes you use, if altered to “fit” some tough case will cease to work on standard cases when so altered.

The “tough case” (who is also the difficult student) is the sole reason one has an urge to alter a process.

You must be sure to push routine processes done routinely. When you see a process being altered look for a “tough case” in the pc or the student and call HCO promptly if you find the poor TA type case, the “no change” response to routine processes.

Your approach is to run the standard processes in the right grade in the right sequence. That’s all you teach students to do and it’s all you do in case supervision.

When these “don’t work” even when you force them to be correctly applied, you have a tough case there. Don’t louse up Scientology technology to handle a “tough case”. You don’t have to invent the processes for it. They already exist in the HGC. When you see alter-is, look for the tough case and let HCO take it from there. We are, after all a team, and as a team we can handle our environment.

Your job is just teach and get run the processes of the grade in the right sequence. Your job is to teach students to do just that. Your job is to force the student to run the process that should be run and run it right and to correct any alter-is savagely.

Never let some student tell you “it didn’t work” without at once plowing in there to look. You will find only one of two things wrong:—

1. 	Your student erred in the wording, sequence or application of the process through lack of study.

	or

2. 	Either the student auditor or the student pc is a “tough case”.

Don’t let anybody try to vary a process to fit a case. If you do your indicator is obscured in letting anybody fool about in “trying to make a process work” or trying to get inventive just to crack a “tough case”.

The majority of your course trouble and the tendency to alter-is material comes from trying to force a “tough case” to get gains. Should you alter or advise alteration of a process you are letting our side down. It leads you into teaching students to alter-is and there goes the balloon. It means they won’t be able to run standard stuff successfully. And that means (let’s be brutal) they will miss, by non-standard auditing, on 909 of their cases, the good people. They will slant all Scientology toward one nut and we’ll be a failed mess like psychiatry with our clinics full of psychiatric cases not people.

The HGC (and perhaps one course level) is taught to handle “tough cases”. The processes for them are standard, too. You must hold the line and answer a student’s “didn’t work” with “Exactly what didn’t work?” and “Exactly what did you do?” and you’ll find they didn’t do it, or it’s a tough case. Either way follow policy.

YOU MUST REPORT A TOUGH CASE TO HCO AT ONCE.

For there sits a Justice matter, not an Academy problem. It’s not your hat.

You see the no-gain-case, the “withholdy case that ARC Breaks easily”, “The blowy student”, “unstable gain student” and your tendency may be to do something original or give the student some different process. If you do you are madly off-policy. In the ordinary Academy Course you are not teaching a “tough case” course. You are teaching a nice fast, workable course for decent average cases. Your majority is composed of good students. They deserve your time.

So this makes the “tough case” student the odd man (or woman) out. They make a lot of commotion so one may think they are “everybody” on a course. They’re not. They are seldom higher than 10%. So you risk the 90% of your course and all Scientology just to handle 10%.

Could I point out that the Protestant idea of recovering at any expense and considering very valuable any sheep who strayed, was batty. How about the whole flock? Leave them to the wolves while one ran off after one? No, please don’t go the route by doing that. It’s pretty awful.

No, this “tough case” is for the HGC and HCO. And I’d darn well rather you didn’t give the person the technology before he straightens out as he’ll hurt people with it.

Such “tough cases” are possible to salvage. They’re just cases. But it takes an HGC to run them and it takes HCO to hold them still so they’ll be audited. Remember, we’re a team. HCO and HGC are part of the team. Don’t steal their hats.

The “tough case” is judged only on the basis of case gain or lack of it.

The Academy does NOT send students to the HGC for “slow study” or dullness or any other reason except “tough case”. That’s firm policy. The “tough case” is the only one you send.

There are 3 categories of these “tough cases”.

1. The Roller Coaster Case.

The Potential Trouble Source. A suppressive person is on the other side of this one. The case will get a gain and slump, get a gain and slump over and over. It isn’t a “manic-depressive” as the old 1 9th Century psycho-analyst thought. It’s a guy whose marital partner or family is going into fits over this person’s connection with Scientology. This is purely a Justice matter and belongs to HCO. He either disconnects or acts to settle his or her situation. No halfway measures. But you can’t do much about that in an Academy. If you did you’d leave your class to the wolves. Get on-line and route this mysterious fellow who can’t get a gain without losing it the next day or week over to HCO with a “Please investigate. Possible Potential Trouble Source.” Don’t even bother to question the student. HCO will find out. It’s also illegal to audit them so HCO won’t even route to the HGC but will act as per policy on such.
Always err on the side of sending HCO too many students rather than risk keeping one who is a liability to us all. But never send merely a course “cut-up” or a lazy student whose case runs well. This policy is only faintly discipline. It is actually excellent technology to a recurring course problem.

2. The Withholdy Case.

The withholdy case is routinely ARC Breaking and having to be patched up, commonly blows, has to have lots of hand-holding. As your course possibly isn’t at that level it is too much to handle anyway and you’re not equipped to handle. But even if your course is equipped to handle the right action is again HCO. Report this student to HCO with the label “Withholdy case that ARC Breaks easily” or “Blow type case”. And get HCO over to the Academy. HCO may route to HGC at the student’s own expense or get two tough staff members to stand by while the withholds are explored on a meter in case this is a real Justice case or just a student lunch thief. The reason for all that weird behaviour is always a withhold condition. You can’t be bothered. HCO, however, is interested in the NO REPORT aspect of such a case. This person hasn’t told all that’s sure. HCO can send to HGC or refund or even Comm Ev.

3. The Suppressive Person.

The suppressive person does turn up to get trained. And when you train them (a) their case doesn’t change, (b) they cheer when their course pc loses and gloom when their course pc wins and (c) they chatter about the horrors of discipline and seek to lead student squirreling or revolt. 

Their dream is a society wherein the criminal may do anything he pleases without any faintest restraint. We sometimes get loaded up with these characters but they run about 1 or 2 in 80 students usually. This person has no faintest chance of making it unless handled for what he or she is in an HGC. And if you train such you lend our name to all the chicanery and injury they do with our tech and protect them with our name. 

You’ve seen this case in another guise of squirreling— chatter-chatter about phoney past lives when they were Cleopatra and so on invalidating others’ actual memories, talking only whole track to raw meat. You’ve seen this one. It’s suppression pure and simple and they know it! And they don’t ever get a case change and their ARC Breaks don’t heal, etc. etc. etc! 

The secret here is CONTINUOUS OVERTS which are then withheld. The technical fact is they are quite gone and are SOLVING A PERSONAL BUT LONG GONE PROBLEM BY CONTINUOUS OVERTS. One can actually handle them if one knows this seemingly tiny fact. One finds of course the PTP, not the overts. For one has about as much chance pulling this fellow’s overts as moving the Earth by pulling weeds. 

The suppressive acts this person does are solutions to solve some long long ago problem in which the pc is stuck. To an HGC this is finding conditions of environment the pc has had and discovering how he or she handled them. But this is HCO—HGC business. The longer you wait to notify HCO, the more harm will be done and HCO will get inquisitive as to why there was no report from you on this. For here is the auditor heart breaker, the natterer, the rumour factory, the 1.1 and the course and group wrecker. Here’s “Whee, kill everybody!” in person. Here also is the possible government agent, the AMA BMA stooge. Here is the guy who plans to “squirrel” and “grab Scientology”. Here is the boy. Or here is the girl. But here is also a thetan buried in the mud. And if you let this person go without attention he or she will soon become ill or die—or worse will mess up or kill others. The person is the only real psycho. And if you let him drift he’ll soon wind up in the brain surgeon’s suppressive hands. So it’s nothing to overlook. 

People who have to solve their problems by shooting the rest of us down are what made life such a hell in this Universe. You have your hands on the implanted the warmonger, the wrecker. But still, this is what’s left of a human being and he or she can be salvaged. But only in an HGC, not a course. Please! Here also is the criminal or the sex crazy guy or the pervert who just had to break old Rule 25 (the old no-sex Academy rule). People who are sex crazy are over their heads in a collapsed bank that they’ve collapsed themselves with overts. 

Let’s be real. This person throws people back in twice as fast as we can pull them out! So why arm him with tech. Put on your label when you send for HCO “No-Case-Change despite good tries with the routine processes taught on this course that was closely supervised in correct application”. Let HCO take it from there. It’s not Academy business.

Your routine procedure on any of the 3 types of case is:

1. 	Call HCO Department of Inspection and Reports;

2.	Minimize disturbance;

3.	Hold the student in an empty classroom or auditing room;

4.	Stand by to help if things get rough;

5.	Help HCO complete its report; 

6.	Let HCO (and probably HGC) take over from there and get back to your students.

If you’re going to grow and get your own case changes and have a good time instructing you’ll read this very, very carefully and put it very briskly into practice.

At first you may not agree that you should be so sharp. It may be a blow to feeling you can crack all cases. You probably can. But man, that’s an HGC hat. What are you doing wearing it as an Instructor? By all means crack the routine cases. But the tough ones? That’s HCO and HGC.

The bigger we get, the easier all this will be.

But now let’s mark a start in teaching courses that are fun for all by giving the deep six to those who want a mess.

Okay?

Well, do it, do it, do it.

L. RON HUBBARD

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

6504C06 SHSpec-57 The Org Board and Livingness

[Reference: HCOPL 3Apr65.  Not available in OEC volumes.]

HCOPL 3Apr65 gives basic organization in detail.

The present org board is an old Galactic Civilization board with a couple of departments missing.

The org board is a philosophical machine.  A command chart covers only one aspect of organizational functioning.  A true org board must take care of what happens.  If a function is not expressed on the org board, it will be worn by everybody, unknowingly.  When you put a box on an org board, it will be filled.

Men cannot work as a team without policy.  Even bad policy will at least make a team, if it is followed.  Policy is the extant agreement of the group. Without this agreement, you only get individual action.

If an organization is better organized than other organizations, it wouldn’t have to do anything spectacular about the other organizations [by way of competing with them or battling with them].  Every war traces back to wild out-policy.

If we come up the line as people, as individuals, and also as part of the team, we won’t get into all the trouble we got into as roarin’, screamin’ individuals, ‘way back on the track.  We will be able to make it all the way, because we will be able to keep order all the way.

Case stability depends upon the smooth organization of individuals. Without an organization, the tech would drop out, in time.

The organization must be close to flawless.  Once you have put the organization in concrete and started it rolling, if it is almost right, you have had it, because it will become an all-devouring monster, and it will fail by the germs of its own destruction.  And what destroys almost any organization is its own germs.  It’s the things it laid in.  It’s the things you did, not the things that were done to you.  The only way you can come down is for having made a mistake yourself.  There must always be that prior mistake.  Sometimes it is very slight and unpredictable, apparently.  When a curve goes down, there are lots of errors.  There is no one major error.  You must have understandings, not understanding.

There are 265 x 6 separate dynamic urges in Man and 265 x 6 x 18 separate causations.  There was an effort to make them so numerous that no one could embrace them. [Actual GPM’s?]

Organizational policy must be comprehensible.  The org board must express:

1.  Function.

2.  Duties.

3.  Sequences of actions.

4.  Authorities.  The org board gives the cycle of raw meat to OT: the cycles of actions that a person would undertake, from the public.  It became a public org board, too. The public enters from the left and proceeds to the right.  

In life:

1.  You must have an impulse into a channel.

2.  The edges of a channel must be held firm.

3.  The barriers in the channel must be removed.

4.  The non-compliance of forwardings in the channel must be taken care of.

5.  The distractions must be removed from the borders of the channel.

6.  There must be some place for something going down the channel to arrive at.  

This is the definition of life.  Life, without that channel, won’t exist. That is livingness: going along a certain course, impelled by a purpose, with some place to arrive.  This also gives us all the levels of the gradation program.  Clear is a baby OT.  His next bank is the physical universe.

The first point on the org board is the Office of LRH.  This used to be HASI.  This deals with:

1.  Authority

2.  LRH’s material.

3.  LRH’s signature.  

The main thing about this department is the issuance of conditions.  The first cog is that there is a condition.  Hence, this is the entrance point for raw meat.  He thinks others will take care of him.  However, he must recognize his condition, or he will die.  Others tell him that his condition is that he will die.  Scientology says, “You don’t have to die, or get sick, etc.”  All processes from that point on contain a condition.

After you have a condition, you had better communicate with it.  Hence the next department is the Department of Communications, and the name of the level is “communication”.

The next level is “perception”: the Department of Inspections and Reports.  Communication must precede perception.

The next point is orientation.  The individual finds out that he has been living in a nightmare.  This is the Department of Compilation.  After you have accumulated notes, you can put them together and hand them to people, so that they can get oriented.  [Cf. these Briefing Course notes.]

Perceptions get compiled into understandings, so the next department is understandings, i.e. the Department of Publications.  This department publishes what is to be understood or what is understood.  Understanding is just telling yourself what is understood.

The next department, the Department of Promotion, is under “purposes”. The only thing the Prom-Reg ever handles is purposes.  The PC, at this level on the gradation chart, has arrived at “purposes”, i.e. R6.  He has gotten rid of false purposes; he has achieved the state of clear, in its new 1964 definition.   [See tape 6409C03 SHSpec-38 “Clearing -- What It Is”]

The above is all under HCO.  HCO is a double-barreled division.  

If you cross two divisions on a hat, from that point on, you have jammed the ability of an organization to expand.  Don’t have one person on hats in two different divisions.  Therefore six people are necessary, in order to have an org: one for each division.  When an organization gets fairly big, you cross departmental hats at your peril.

Personnel housing  Division 3 has to hold things together, e.g. the physical plant.  It is also involved in financial planning.
Division 4 has to do with what you do, the doingness.

There has been a neglected factor [on the Galactic Confederation org board]: the product.  An organization has to qualify the product.  It must find out what made the product fall down. [I.e.  there is a need for a “lost battles” division.] You must not let the person who trains students examine them.

Scientology is the ability to change conditions.  But we have to decide what conditions we want to change.  You have to convince people that the product of scientology is valuable.  The alternative is sitting on an island, out of communication. [It is the product that is distributed.]
You can take your life and find out which division is missing.

Note that there are six divisions and sixteen departments.  To expand the org board, each department would have primarily six sections, with sixteen sub-sections.  Each one of these subsections, in turn, may have six “divisions”, with sixteen “departments”.  Each divisional head knows all the department hats in his division, and something about all other departmental hats.  This gives you, basically, six hats and a staff member hat.  There should be two admin personnel for every tech person.

If any hats below you on the org board are empty, you are responsible for them.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL AD 15

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students	
LEVEL I

PREMATURE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Here’s a new discovery. Imagine my making one on the Comm Formula after all these years.

Do people ever explain to you long after you have understood?

Do people get cross with you when they are trying to tell you something?

If so, you are suffering from Premature Acknowledgement.

Like body odor and bad breath, it is not conducive to social happiness. But you don’t use Life buoy soap or Listerine to cure it, you use a proper comm formula.

When you “coax” a person to talk after he has begun with a nod or a low “yes” you ack, make him forget, then make him believe you haven’t got it and then make him tell you at GREAT length. He feels bad and doesn’t cognite and may ARC Break.

Try it out. Have somebody tell you about something and then encourage before he has completely told you all.

THAT’S why pcs Itsa on and on and on and on with no gain. The auditor prematurely acknowledged. THAT’S why pcs get cross “for no reason”. The auditor has prematurely and unwittingly acknowledged. THAT’S why one feels dull when talking to certain people. They prematurely acknowledge. That’s why one thinks another is stupid—that person prematurely acknowledges.

The quickest way to become a social pariah (dog) is to prematurely acknowledge. One can do it in many ways.

The quickest way to start the longest conversation is to prematurely acknowledge for the person believes he has not been understood and so begins to explain at greater and greater length.

So this was the hidden ARC Break maker, the cognition wrecker, the stupidifier, the Itsa prolonger in sessions.

And why some people believe others are stupid or don’t understand.

Any habit of agreeable noises and nods can be mistaken for acknowledgement, ends cycle on the speaker, causes him to forget, feel dull, believe the listener is stupid, get cross, get exhausted explaining and ARC Break. The missed withhold is inadvertent. One didn’t get a chance to say what one was going to say because one was stopped by premature acknowledgement. Result, missed w/h in the speaker, with all its consequences.

This can be counted on to make you feel frightened of being “agreeable with noises or gestures” for a bit and then you’ll get it straight.
What a piece of tech to remain incompletely explained. Fair scares one it does. And in the Comm Formula too!

L RON HUBBARD

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

6504C13 SHSpec-58 The Lowest Levels

Research is not wrapped up.  A new datum has emerged, and research is going South.   [LRH is researching power processing.] It is not surprising that the more one discovers in the upper reaches, the more understanding one has of fundamentals that apply to the bottom.

You’ve got R6EW.  That is holding you nicely.  “I’m putting the capper on the R6 GPM plot.”  R6 has developed into a series of star-rated processes. The first is the method of cleaning up out-ruds on yourself.  It is a solo ruds process.  Two-terminal auditing is too slow, at Level VI.  Solo auditing all the GPM’s on R6 takes about three months, at three to four hours per day. The end product of this auditing is clear, as we knew it in the earliest days: no reactive bank at all.  A thetan experiences a sense of unfamiliarity at this level, and he runs into problems, like “How do you handle a body?” He has to learn to postulate with great rapidity.  It is a condition of “too aware”. He has to get used to reading people’s minds.  He finds that absolute zero is a proper temperature.  Everything else is hot.  It is in tiny, but observable motion, and it is bothersome, at first.  He needs re-familiarization.  He is not quite sure what he can do.  His framework on whom he must fight changes. He can start wondering about his sanity, because previously sensible things seem foolish.  He can also get solutions.  He can do analyses of situations that were previously blank puzzles.

The road to OT is one of familiarity.  A clear has trouble “trying to reconcile what has been going on in [his] life with what [he is] now.  [He is] not really able to think very straight about how confused [he was].... Sometimes it’s hard to understand why somebody else is confused.”  For instance, try to “wrap your wits around some guy’s saying, ‘But we gotta get the Republicans back in power!’” You know they are nutty, too, since you erased your confusion and don’t have it around anymore as a standard.  “Clear is not necessarily a very tolerant state, but it is not a very antagonistic state, either....  It’s not negative....  One is far more positive about things than he ever was before. His reactions are far more vivid.”

You have to realize that a thetan can become aberrated without being implanted or having GPM’s.  But what really made him unable was GPM’s, which gave him wrong purposes and smashed him down, so that he couldn’t have any purpose of his own.  All his own real purposes are suppressed.  When you get out into the open, your own purposes show up, and you start doing what you would like to do, not what your bank wants you to do.  In scientology, we have been working with what the thetan wants.  We only fail with other people when we treat them as other than a thetan, a being.  All thetans want out, even those that are in an insane asylum, who fight everybody who comes in the door.  Beings are basically good.  One reason why the being has consented to have a bank is that it prevents everyone else from being bad.  That is so far-fetched that no one would ever look for it as the philosophical fundamental in back of the aberration of Man.

There is aberration that a thetan can get into, based on his ignorance, his unfamiliarities, his decisions based on no data, etc.  Scientology is built straight around what might happen to a thetan.  GPM’s gave him reverse purposes.  He decided that, to keep others and himself good, he should have a bank to prevent himself and them from being bad.  The idea was that Man is bad, and we have to do something to him to make him good.  So we all have to agree to have a bank to keep us from being bad.  But the bank cut off the thetan from all familiarity with himself as he was.  The decision to do that -- to create a bank -- “somehow put him into a condition where he couldn’t conceive of how he had been.  It was a cut-off.” He is like a guy in a coal pit who doesn’t believe that there is a sun [or Plato’s cave metaphor in The Republic].  He thinks that what he is in is a normal environment.  He will say, “Look.  You can see there is no sun or light.  That’s proof!” That was the barrier that made someone unsalvageable, before we knew about it.

“As you come up the line, your R gets ... violated [by the wog world]. The higher you get, the more your R is susceptible to violation, but, fortunately, the more capable you are of standing up to invalidation.  It doesn’t mean anything to you.”  It is vital that someone improve on a gradient, since a PC’s “case gain must not outrun his capability of handling the new reality.”

You can’t travel the road to truth halfway.  [See the tape:  6211C01 SHSpec-207 “The Road to Truth”,  above.] It is vital that LRH reorganize and perfect organizations now, because we are at the make-break point, where it requires a hard push at first, shifting over to a runaway forward motion.  If we released a public book right now, we would cave ourselves in.  The orgs have to be able to expand rapidly, before a flood of new people hits it.  We can push the boom-button any time.

All of a sudden, LRH made a discovery that found the answer to cases that wouldn’t run successfully on Level 0 [Power processing].  There are two levels below Level 0:

1.  Conditions processes.

2.  Existence processes.  Existence is below conditions.  This antiquated the plans for a boom.  So there have been changes:  There are three conditions processes.  

Auditing the case on these below-zero processes is a walk in the park. However, it may take a Class VI to run them, because what flies off the case comes off so fast that the velocity might be too much for a co-auditor or a lower-level auditor.  These processes handle the no-case-gain case.  They were developed to handle cases that LRH had formerly handled with justice and ethics.  These are the new conditions processes, which could be run at any point on a case, and which have an exact end-point, beyond which they won’t run further.

Below the conditions processes is existence processing.  An existence process is one in which a person recognizes something about existence. Mimicry gets at this sideways.  Having these processes makes it hard to write a new public book, because they should be included in the discussion, but not enough is known about them yet to write about them.  Since the new membership pricing system was created, based on the idea of having a new public book, the pricing is premature, which backs it up on the orgs.  We will get the orgs to back up and get their organization and sign-up line well in hand.  “Look around here and find something really real to you,” is a process at the existence level.  It was a wildcat process from upper-level tech that belongs at or towards the bottom.  You get a person to find one thing that is really real, in the room.  A basic undercutting command might be, “Are you?” “Something like that....  It’s a familiarity, without contact or communication, and without an awareness of what familiarity is arriving.  You get the shut-off? Because, as you’ve gone South, you’ve dropped orientation, you’ve dropped perception, ... communication, ... conditions, and you’re [now] in existence....  That existence must be without any of the other things....[So] what is this level called ‘Existence’?  How would you audit something without understanding, orientation, perception, communication, or the recognition of a condition? ... What do we have left?” We don’t know, but we will!

The new organizational plan is going in faster than it has been released.  You can’t keep an org out of it.  Despite its current incompleteness, it is a big magnet that is trying to take existing departments and put them on it.  It is unique, and it works because it is a parallel-line org board, not a vertical org board.  “It operates left and right, not up and down.”  One odd characteristic is that each repeating department, as you go across the board from left to right, has nothing to do with the functions that follow it but “includes all of the functions which precede it.   [Just] try to squeeze into a department, comfortably, some action which follows it on the ... board, to the right.”  You get trouble.  “Try to get into the orientation department something about understanding....  Well, that has its own departmental functions, but ... the next one to ... the right [is] purposes. Now, let’s put [purposes under understanding].  In other words, we’re going to have purposes before we have understanding.”  You get a mess, organizationally or in auditing.  E.g., “If you try to put something about promotion under understanding, why, people just sit around and ‘understand’ that there should be some promotion.”  

It was working with the org board that brought to light the lower sub-zero levels, because the org board is “not an org board at all.  It’s a philosophic machine, to which an organization is easily adapted....  It’s an all-devouring monster.  Anything that comes near it gets changed for the better.”  It gives answers to questions that we have had trouble with before, like personnel.  An ad is kept placed; people come in; they get hired; they work for two weeks with a staff hat; they go to review; etc.  It all gets done without having to go through any executive.  An applicant who calls up for a job gets a call two days later, saying, “Come on in.”  He gets a meter-check (for TA).  Then he is routed through F.P. to his place of work for a two week temporary assignment, at the end of which he goes to review and is either kept on or told that he needs more training for the job.  Even if review boots him out, he remains an applicant, needing some more preparation before he can have the job.  Review also tells the labor exchange about him, to see if he can get other employment right away.  Review also has a displaced person division, to give him a meal ticket, get him on a PE course, or co-audit, until he can function.  Then he is hired on a provisional basis for a year.  Review maintains a file of these people for periods of crush labor.  The only way this whole system won’t work is if you don’t man up the posts.  This employment system is also great for procurement.  People come to work and stay to study.  Thus anything that gets near the organization begins to move.

This new organizational structure improves things for the better, whether people like it or not:  It has to be completed before we release the Field Staff Member program, which will give back-up to field auditors.  Private practice a la MD’s must be wrong, since it is failing.  It takes quite a team to process PCs.  It is possible to process PCs in an organization, but not in individual practice.

Suppose you had dissemination technology that would make it so anyone you talked to would immediately become a scientologist?  It exists!  It is only two or three weeks old, not yet released.  The person who resists and protests it is the easiest to get.  And if FSM’s are sending in all sorts of cases, even very low-level cases, the organization must be able to handle them right off the bat.  All auditors that were ever trained are now to be called FSM’s. The pay is ten percent of the fee of the person you send in.

A Center is a nucleus of an organization.  If it moves even vaguely in the direction of an org board, it will wind up becoming an organization so fast, it won’t know what happened.

There is a policy that you can’t be retrained for a level that you have already obtained.  This goes along with the policy that a checksheet can’t be changed, once you are on it.

There are at least twelve levels above Level VI, and St. Hill will be teaching those.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

(FOR HGCs AND ACADEMIES AND
COURSES)

HCO Secs, Org Secs, Assn Secs
take notice!

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

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

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

Levels must be audited in sequence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These actions with the new levels will be found magical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only in that way can you make releases and clears.

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

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

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

In HGCs I want auditing exactly by the book.

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

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

It will be the easiest auditing you ever did.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6504C27 SHSpec-59 Awareness Levels

[LRH makes several observations on recent organizational out-points.]

Wherever the public impinges on the organization, it enturbulates and erodes.  It is the public that is in a confusion.  We are putting the stable datum of an organization or a scientologist into the middle of the confusion. An individual cannot stand alone against the public in the midst of this confusion.  He will get knocked appetite-over-tin-cup by the public, unless backed up by the organization.  Every scientologist and org in the world is connected with the suppressive thing called “the society”, so they would skid if left by themselves.  You are dealing with a psychotic society.  “There are thirty-two levels below 0, and the average public is at least fifteen levels below 0....And neurosis starts at ten [levels below 0].”  It goes only a few levels down, then becomes psychosis.  “Psychosis is an inability to observe. And that’s your public.”

Last year, when LRH first had a total reality on the exact character of the reactive mind; on exactly how it was there and exactly what it was calculated to make an individual do, he was shocked.  Knowing that shock is an indication that there is something wrong with what he is shocked with, he went over the structure of the bank, suppressed, challenged, and ARC broke it.  The shock was not actually with the reactive bank, but with the pretenses that had been made, about the character of Man.  “I haven’t cognited [heavily] for ages.”  LRH can’t get his own TA up.  Masses affect his body, but not him.

Here is some more data that LRH has found, on the subject of clear:  A clear’s time track is gone, so the eidetic memory talked about in Book One is there only if he puts it there.  A clear recalls, not with pictures, but by knowing.  “Pictures are completely unnecessary for any kind of a recall at all.  [This is] probably the only change there’s been, from the definition of a Book One clear.”  There are also energy phenomena, mentioned several years after Book One, like heating things up by looking at them.  A clear can make something warm by staring at it.  As a person goes on up, he takes both the new abilities and the lost disabilities for granted.  The negative gain is gain by absence, and the positive gain is regaining his natural abilities, after all, so he may not notice the change, unless he mocks up what was wrong with him last week.  So don’t expect your PC always to be telling you what a wonderful auditor you are.  That is a bank phenomenon that will destimulate in three to ten days.  The person’s increased awareness may not be all pleasant. He can look at some dynamic or sphere of existence and see it clearly, with a shock.

“The common denominator of behavior is degree of awareness.” That is what is held in common by all life.  There is no such thing as being aware or not aware.  It is all degrees of awareness -- a gradient, like all the scales: The difference between person A and person B is degree of awareness, or awareness of different things.  There are certain things of which one would become aware in order to get, or as one got, a case advance.  If you skip one or two or three of those, you can’t become aware of this higher one.  LRH plotted the Scale of Awareness to get the bridge down to homo sapiens, not having noticed the gap that he had created, between himself and the low-level PC.  That is how he got thirty-two levels of awareness below Level 0.  He suddenly found himself looking at the human race and it was a horrible shock.  It felt weird.  He got over it in about twenty-four hours, realizing that if you could deal with the average public PC, you could process a dog.  “You are at least ten or twelve levels below communication, with the average public PC.”  The problem is: How do you process, when you don’t have a comm line? Another problem is that as someone comes up in awareness, he goes through anti-social bands, as well as inoffensive ones.  There are bands amongst them that are passive and propitiative.  These are resting places, in which society doesn’t worry about you; i.e. it doesn’t try to suppress you.

These lower levels are jammed together, and it is a bit hard to tell the order, down near the bottom.  The Awareness Scale measures what a person could become aware of.  “If you find a person anyplace on [the Awareness]-Scale, ... then the next action which you have to do ... to give him a case gain, is to make him aware of the next level above that.”  For instance, someone below suffering might have a case gain by being made to suffer.  You wouldn’t necessarily process him up to this awareness.  The lowest type of process you would use is mimicry.  He would be aware that he was doing it because you were doing it.

“Awareness is always a matter of increasing perimeter [of reality].”  You get concentric circles of awareness.  For instance, a psycho is only aware out to his fist.  Beyond that is delusion.  Awareness can invert and “increase” into delusion, which puzzles you, since the person seems to be getting nuttier.  Delusion is inverted awareness.  “You’ve got to increase his awareness in the direction of sanity or reality.”  Process in the direction of something real.  A person who is improving gets more and more aware of what is going on, inside a wider and wider perimeter.  You could get a guy aware of a wall two feet in front of his face, and it could be a vast improvement.  You can do this with 8C, increasing the distance to the wall when the PC touches it.  Communication begins to come in.

“You can have action without awareness:  [I.e. you can have the situation where] what the individual is aware of and what [he] is doing are not the same thing -- ever.”  Hence you get long-term headaches.  “Therefore the observation of conduct ... will not diagnose [a] person, unless you have a little, secret [awareness] scale of your own.  In other words, you’d have to know the secret of what the MEST universe dictates, as a gradient scale” of awareness.  Observation of conduct will not lead to a solution of the situation, and Man falls down in thinks that it will.  The field of psychology, etc., being entirely based on observation and labelling of conduct, comes up with inaccurate diagnoses and messed-up solutions.  You can’t watch a patient and decide that he is a “gymnastico potico” and a firebug who is compulsively attracted to water on that account.  The reason this girl keeps going to the water fountain is because she is thirsty.  She may be stuck in a French Foreign Legion engram in the Sahara.  Therefore, the remedy might have nothing to do with water, fire, etc.  The moment you grasp this principle, you get the stable datum: “Don’t draw and conclusions from conduct.”  All unexpected conduct tells you is that “you don’t know about something.  But that is something to know.”  Labelling is bad science and leads to no solution.  “All science [is, is the discovery that, or all science had to find out, to become science is that] when something isn’t working, you haven’t got the answer.”  This explains the advance of the physical sciences.  The mental sciences got parked, by substituting authoritarian statements for searching for a workable answer.

If, as an auditor, you base what you do on what the PC is doing, you will go nuts, too.  For instance, if the PC is nattering and the auditor agrees with the natter and takes the PC’s data as a truth, nothing happens.  Conduct can be used only as an indicator that, since the PC “is behaving in some way [that] you didn’t expect, ... there is something about him that you didn’t know.” That you can ask the PC, regardless of whether it is a missed withhold or not.  “What don’t I know about you?” will resolve the situation. Labelling it won’t.  Never just label conduct that you don’t understand.  Know that you don’t know what is going on and find out.  Also consider what the PC can find out about himself.

The nuttier someone is, the harder he is to handle.  He is less aware and you are less aware of what you don’t know about him.  Also, the nuttier the PC is, the harder it is to get his attention so that you can find out what he is aware of and what is going on and what you don’t know.  The “don’t knows” are fabulous.  You have to push to get the person to become aware enough -- to get him high enough on the Awareness Scale -- so that you can find out enough, So you can find out what you don’t know about the person.  The game would be, “What can I find out about this person, and what can he find out about himself?” By increasing that awareness scale, the person will get saner and saner, more and more aware, more and more himself.  He can hit dynamic situations which he becomes aware of with a shock.

“You have to eat humble pie to begin this subject at all.  You have to know that there is something in the universe you don’t know.  And that, for a person who is ‘way down scale, is the most dangerous utterance that he could possibly make.”  He is so totally sealed off from things that “if everyone realized how blind he was [he thinks], they’d just eat him up.  So he compensates for his unawareness by automatic mechanisms of pretense.  [He lacks the] courage ... to say, ‘Well, I don’t know anything about that.’  And yet he can’t resolve any situation until he says, ‘Well!  Whaddya know!  I’ve got an area where I don’t know.’”  Therefore, “When you see somebody behaving oddly, ... the only thing you know is that ... there’s something you’re certainly unaware of and [that] he is probably unaware that he is unaware of. He’ll cover that up with a pretended awareness which doesn’t exist [i.e. delusion].”

Having gone through despair on the subject, a person can come up to a realization that “there is something you can know ... about anything you confront....  You can know that you don’t know, and that is the first thing you should know about it.”  Now you can take the action necessary to find out, and, in the process of finding out, the whole thing will clarify.

The amazing thing about aberration is that if you did find out about something, e.g. the internal government of Russia, it would either go clear or collapse.  Just finding out what a situation is as-ises that situation. Running an engram out of an organization or an individual is just continuing to pull into view what people didn’t know about the individual or organization.  The only way in which you could fail to pull something into view is to suppose that you knew all there was to know about it and that there was nothing more to learn.  A clear has become broadly aware of where he is unaware.  When he spots something like this, he decides that:

1.  He should find out.    or 

2.  It doesn’t make any difference.  

You can decide whether it is worth finding out, and if you do start finding out, it will collapse.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 MAY 1965
REISSUED 4 JULY 1970

Remimeo

CLASSIFICATION, GRADATION AND
AWARENESS CHART

You will find a chart enclosed in The Auditor Issue 8. It covers many things.

There are about 52 levels of awareness from Unexistence up to the state of CLEAR.

By “Level of Awareness” is meant that of which a being is aware.

A being who is at a level on this scale is aware only of that level and the others below it.

To get a case gain such a person must become aware of the level next above him. And so on up in orderly sequence, level by level.

If you skip a person on one level several levels up, he or she will experience only an unreality and will not react. This is expressed as “no-case-gain”. On the E-Meter it registers as “No Tone Arm Action” meaning there is no meter registry of change on the meter control lever (tone arm).

A person audited a bit below or at his level of awareness gets “Tone Arm Action”, Case Gain and has cognitions (new concepts of life).

A principal contribution of Scientology is the technology necessary to change people so that they progress into higher states of ability when processed on the exact processes required by an auditor qualified by training to apply the processes expertly.

It is not only general ability that increases, but IQ, renewed livingness and the skill and ability to better self and conditions.

The state of homo sapiens runs from around - 4 down to the bottom. Normal is probably much lower.

As you study the chart you will see it is a road map upward.

On the left we see the Class of the Auditor necessary to take the person up as well as the Grade the preclear reaches.

In the next column we see his certificate name, obtained through his training at an Academy and, later, Saint Hill.

Then we see a very general description of the processes used on that grade.

The next column shows what pcs a classified auditor can audit. He can audit anyone at his Class numeral or below. He cannot audit pcs higher because of course he has not been trained to do so and is likely to have upset pcs.

The final column shows where the certificate and class is obtained.

THE BRIDGE

This is the famous bridge mentioned at the end of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

It is now complete and is functioning. The being enters it from somewhere in the minus regions as a Beginning Scientologist and moves on up. At about Grade II he has definitely reached Homo Novis. He becomes a RELEASE somewhere between II and V. And he becomes CLEAR at the top of VI. The state of Operating Thetan is attained above VI and is a Grade VII.

For Man to have this at all is quite remarkable. He never had it before since we find him improving but still, on the average, well below - 4.

By following this chart one can make RELEASE and then CLEAR.

Up to Grade V one of course has help. But above that technical limitations bar completely the idea of CO-auditing. Some auditors will attempt it, themselves very far from there case-wise, and some have tried to show untrained pcs how to “solo audit” with a meter. The common result is that the pcs eventually collapse in a total overwhelm as they are not trained to handle such forces and so it is a cruel thing to do.

The preclear moves safely on the proper bridge and somewhere along the line must be trained in the classifications that match his Grade. Then (and only then) can he make it all the way.

One can be audited quite a ways. Then he had better get trained from zero on up.

You see here some new certificates. These were made necessary by the gap which existed between the higher-toned public person (- 5) and the beginning of the span. We had to have a longer approach on the bridge. And so we put a certificate ladder there.

Beginning Scientologist is given for a PE and so on up as the chart shows.

The Class material has not been changed. If anyone has a Class Zero he is still a Class Zero but we will give him a new certificate to replace his old one. And so on. There is no change in Grades and Certificates from Class II up. Class V has been blank for years. Thus there is a proper certificate there, the HUBBARD VALIDATED AUDITOR. It says this auditor has been through a review of all his lower skills plus new ones and can jump off now for Solo and CLEAR.

Previously we not only did not reach into the average homo sapiens awareness but we also had no means of touching cases much below - 4.

You are probably intrigued by Class VII. These Power Processes are what the CLEAR (or Auditor almost there) audits on low level pcs. Auditors below that case level can of course run them a bit but the processes shortly cave him in. These processes are only available at Saint Hill as they have just recently been perfected and an auditor to do them without danger to himself or the pc has to have interned at Saint Hill as a Saint Hill HGC staff auditor, not the same as a Class VI Saint Hiller.

The thing to do is start in your local Academy at Zero on the chart and move on up.

Today that is faster and less expensive than you would think.

There are two courses to one class. First one does the Certificate Course (Theory) and gets his certificate. This takes the average student about two weeks. Then one takes the Classification Course (Practical) for that class and gets his Provisional Classification. Every auditor must be classified now. This again takes the average student about two weeks. All the courses from Class 0 up to IV are arranged that way.

The material has been streamlined. Class V, obtained at Saint Hill, is longer (and remains the same price as always) as it reviews all the classes and retrains where necessary and awards permanent classification for all the lower certificates as well as Class V.

Some auditing occurs in the Classification Course and group auditing occurs daily.

An unclassed auditor cannot charge a fee for auditing a grade he is not classed for and if he is turned in to HCO because of it the pc can regain all the fee from him. We must make it a safe bridge. Our entire Ethics system is formed just to make it a safe passage for the pc and to hold the bridge together so it can be crossed by Man.

Auditors routinely make Releases with Academy courses today.

Auditors graduated from the Saint Hill course can then take the final steps to make themselves Clear and Saint Hill Interns are trained to make Releases of the lowest cases.

Training fees are uniform in the U.S. now at $100 for each course. In all Commonwealth countries the cost is £28 a course sterling (convert to local currency). There is one course for Certificate, followed by another for Classification.

Field auditors can charge anything they like for HAS and Beginning Scientologist courses. And Hubbard Book Auditors can become HQS through extension courses. Your org may possibly give the lowest course free and charge very little for the HAS.

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

My job is to give you the materials to make Releases and the skill to make Clear. I have done and will do everything I can to help anyone attain these hitherto unreachable heights of life and ability.

The bridge is not only in, it is functioning every hour right now. Book early. The traffic is heavy already. And auditors are the scarcest and most valued beings on this planet.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6505C11 SHSpec-60 ARC Breaks and PTP’s -- The Differentiation

Releases are being made with power processing, with LRH D of P’ing and MSH CS’ing.  It is getting very routine to get keyed-out clears in under fifty hours.  We know that we can audit anybody 34 awareness levels below Level 0. [Note: at this time, the Awareness Scale was apparently in its present (1976) form.] The bulletins covering the power processes are too simple to be anything but confidential.  The processes are too pure and simple to be generally released.  They require both a great deal of training and a high case level.  Therefore, power is to be made confidential.  Power processes can only be audited in organizations.  There is not enough control or sense among people like Homer and Berner to do it in the field.  The idea of running end-words on raw meat!!  It just overwhelms the PC and is tough to straighten out.

Clay table processes have been taken out of the processing line-up.  When people process raw meat with the clay table, they neglect one thing rather uniformly: getting the questions answered.  Only a few processes are left on students’ auditing checksheets.

The international situation has improved.  In the U.S., the senate and house are attacking, or are on the verge of attacking, the FDA.  In Victoria, the report on the Inquiry is delayed.  It will doubtless fizzle out.

People probably thought LRH was exaggerating, when he said that we were going to take the planet.  But he has always meant exactly that.  We are now just at the edge of dissemination as a phase in the development of scientology.  Having the Minus-0 Awareness Level Scale is a great help in dissemination.  The press will support you on “need of change”, so you press this.  They will go along with this.  Whatever the press says is a protest. “Revolutions are popular until you give them the change that is to be made into.  Then they cool off.”  The Scale of Awareness is a scale of what a person, group, or organization can be aware of.  It is new.  Having the Minus-0 Awareness Level Scale opens the door to bringing a person “right up the line to release on study alone, because it has a trick: If you can locate what a person is aware of on that scale, you only have to tell him about the next level, and he will become aware of that and experience a case change.” Therefore, you can get case improvement by education.  Don’t confuse the level a person is at with his conduct.  For instance, someone dramatizing hysteria, i.e. being hysterical, isn’t necessarily, or even generally, aware of hysteria.  Therefore, he isn’t necessarily at the level of hysteria.  We do know that a being must be aware -- and we mean analytically aware -- of something, to be at that awareness level.  Something someone is dramatizing is above where he is and is overwhelming him.  What he is aware of can be discovered he what he “talks about or seems to be alert to.”

There are lower levels than 34 below zero.  But power reaches to the bottom and gives a release.  The two levels below level -34 [Unexistence] are False Causation [-35] and Reasonableness [-36].  These levels are below Uncausing [-32].  The human race generally is near the bottom end of the scale.  A person who is aware of being hysterical is pretty high-toned [relatively speaking].  You can’t pull an overt off the person at Uncausing. There “aren’t any”.  “It just happens.”  “What will be, will be.”  

Religions fail by being below a perception of God.  “The greatest ARC break operation that has ever been pulled in the history of the human race: The God who is everywhere [with] no mass [ -- a] total generality ... total unlocatability ... total power ... total causation.”

Will you please, please differentiate between ARC breaks and PTP’s? Ninety percent of the PCs that you are doing ARC break assessments on are in fact in PTP’s.  The ARC break is usually after a PTP, unless it is a flagrant case of BPC.  A PTP is postulate/counter-postulate.  The PC is at war with something.  He is not just worrying about something he doesn’t like.  He is agin something.  For instance, a husband has an argument with his wife.  One wants to go to the movies, and the other doesn’t.  This is a war, not an ARC break.  But it could lead to an ARC break on both sides.  Running the ARC break wouldn’t help, though it would run.  But running the problem will help. You could find the problem, where you might not ever find “the BPC”. [So the sequence is:

1.  Problem.

2.  Overt.

3.  ARC break. 

If you clean up the BPC, the case won’t improve, because the PTP is unhandled.  They won’t necessarily even feel better.  You have to do something about the fractured postulate.

The condition of someone in a PTP isn’t ARC broken, it’s war.  A postulate/counter-postulate adds up to war.  “It would have done Hitler no good to have run him on an ARC break.”  He might have been on a PTP, though. Probably it would have required power processing to stop him, though.  One commits intentional overts as “a solution to a problem.”  When you define an overt as a solution to a PTP, you can solve any case.  When overts are defined as ARC breaks, they are closed to solution.  The resolution of the case is, “Who have you been mean to?” Process the PC at cause -- always.  A person commits intentional overts for only one reason:  they are solutions to problems.  Knowing this, even low-level cases are open to solution.  But when you define an overt or series of overts as an ARC break, you close the case to a solution.  Because a case is usually struggling along at a low cause-level, the question, “Have you committed an overt?” will be hard for him to answer, because he has never committed an overt, because it was all vitally necessary and therefore totally justified.  You should ask the more penetrating question, “Why is it so vitally necessary and why is it justified?” It is because there was a problem requiring a solution [the solution being the overt].  What throws you is that the problem is so buried in the past that it is impossible to see the connection between the overts and the problem.  The problem is frequently on the past track .  Often it has nothing to do with PT.  The person is still solving a problem relating to an earlier relationship.  It is still PT to him.  Hence it is still a PTP to him.  If you trace it back, you will find that it made sense, somewhere earlier, in a screwy sort of way.  A guy who is always smashing up his car might be solving a problem with Daddy, who never let him use the car, by making the car unuseable.  “You look on a lot of things as overts which are, in actual fact, vitally necessary solutions to urgent immediate problems of survival.  The only thing wrong with them is ... ‘When?’” You could ask a guy, “When?”, with a finger snap, and get, say, “1932”.  Then you could ask, “What problem did you have in 1932?” You will get many, many manifestations, but amongst them will not be disinterest.  If you told someone the right problem, he would change his conduct, having cognited that his solution was nuts.  These solutions are daffy, because of dropped-out time.  The solution is to an ancient problem, which is gone, leaving an overt.

To get the major problem on someone’s track may take a power process. But if the person has some fundamental problem in his life, it has formed innumerable locks, which have moved up to PT, and they are the overts and withholds that he is dramatizing in PT.  If you are clever, you can get at these locks.  You don’t have to ask for overts, if you ask for solutions to the problem.  The old process: “Tell me a problem./What solutions have you had?”, modified to “What solutions have you put into effect to solve [that problem]?”, could be reworded as, “How have you attempted to solve that problem?” So you can just use:

“Tell me a problem.”

“What solutions did you put into effect to solve this problem?”  This would give you O/W.  Or you could use:

“What have you done to solve that problem?”

“How have you attempted to solve that problem?”, or

“What would solve the problem?”, or

“What action of yours was a solution to the problem?”  Some such process would get the overts off.  Any action the person took to solve the problem was to some degree an overt, because it was against another postulate.

An ARC break is a charge that has been restimulated on the back track, which hasn’t moved into full consciousness and therefore hasn’t been identified.  The PC avoids the area.  “An ARC break is BPC [and] hasn’t anything to do with solutions to problems.  [A guy] who is failing to complete a comm cycle because somebody won’t acknowledge it ... only has, really, the BPC of a missed withhold:” an inadvertent missed withhold.  A missed withhold can be inadvertent, not intended.  It looks and feels much like an actual missed withhold.  If you won’t acknowledge the fact that the PC has answered the question, you bypass the charge of his answer.  But the better part of it is that you have given him a problem, since he intended to answer it.  This is a PTP, by definition.  He is trying to solve it [by force].  Then he ARC breaks, but that is secondary.  It will solve rapidly by asking, “What problem have you had in auditing?”, especially on a PC who has been roughed up by not being acknowledged.  Eventually, the PC would give you, “The problem of getting someone to listen to me.”  Then, to get the PC’s overts on auditors, ask, “Then how did you go about solving it?” You get a string of overts by getting PTP’s.  For instance:

“What problem have you had with me about auditing?”

“Well ... Very often you didn’t seem to listen to me.”

“Well, how did you handle [solve] this?”

“I stopped telling you right answers.”  [So the PC has an ARC break, a PTP, and a missed withhold!]

You can be misled by the BPC and the fact that, yes, there is an ARC break.  But the ARC break isn’t fully clean-up-able unless you find the problem that it is based on.  If you clean up the problem and the problems that the PC has had in his auditing, a whole string of ARC breaks and a whole string of overts will blow.  

This is the case because awareness of problems is ‘way South -- below minus thirty-four.  Cause [overts] is ‘way North.  So if you try to pull problems directly with O/W, the PC would already have to be so high-toned that it wouldn’t have any effect on him if you did pull the problems.  You can discuss problems with anybody.  It seems to be the case that where there is life, there are problems.

Where are ARC breaks and BPC, of course.  To get an ARC break, just throw an end-word into restimulation.  Get a total generality hitting the person outside his awareness, and you will see an ARC break on the generality of it. The whole bank is the most total generality that one can state that is still the truth.  When a generality in the bank is restimulated, the person cannot identify the threat, and he feels terrible, not knowing.  This is a true ARC break.  The PC cannot locate the source of this horrible feeling.  It isn’t because he is sick to his stomach.  It is that he doesn’t know why he is sick to his stomach.  If you give someone a wrong item off a GPM, he will go from Tone 40 to Tone -40 so fast that he looks like a dive bomber:  That is an ARC break.  But someone who is ARC broken with an instructor really has a problem and some overts which were solutions.

Auditors can get stuck in the win of successful ARC break assessments and do them on people who really have PTP’s.  They will get loses that way. Problems are far more common than real ARC breaks.

An experimental, non-therapeutic, but very educational process is, “Invent a problem.”  You will see black masses show up, as the PC’s bank collapses on him.  If you ran, “Invent a solution,” and the solutions that the PC gave you were all really invented solutions, the mass would also move in. But if you ran, “Think of (or recall) a problem/solution,” the mass would move off.  You could do, “Think of a problem./ Invent a solution,” and the mass will move in.  Any totally new inventedness tends to collapse the bank.  If you started knocking out a bunch of whole-track problems, you would find the mass going away.  Similarly with whole-track solutions.  The near-far action of it is very interesting.  This makes Problems of Comparable Magnitude able to bring mass in, if you are really inventing, which is hard to do.  The main message is that “you can move mental masses around with the idea of problems and solutions.” Why? Because of the basic definitions of problems and solutions.  A solution is an effort to bat a problem away, which usually fails.  The problem, being postulate/counter-postulate, puts the opposite postulate across from you in a hurry, when you think of it.  A person’s problem is thought of as a mass.  He calls a PTP “it” because it is an “it” to him: a mental mass that he tries to bat away.  Postulate/counter-postulate gives you a mass.  “So, whether he sees it or not, [when a person gets a problem showing up, he] gets a mass show[ing] up, and whether he realizes it or not, the thing he tries to do about it is to do something about it to move it away from him.  But his effort ... will move it closer to him.  So he’s in a situation, when he has a problem, that he has to do something about something ... to get rid of the something which is moving in on him.”  This phenomenon of mass moving in happens in life, too.  The PC normally responds by trying to do something to it to push it away.  But that effort will move it closer to him.  The guy has a “huge, fundamental” problem.  You get it and ask, “Well, all right.  Is that your problem?”, and he will say, “Well, no.  Really the problem was something else.”  You ask the same question again, and he says, “No.  My problem was so and so and so.”  The PC denies each problem as he as-ises it.  They are as-ising in the course of getting down to the main problem.

Sometimes you have a problem of missingness.  There is nothing there to confront.  This leads to a “Where is it?” This kind of problem fringes into a generality and borders on the ARC break.  This is where the problem fringes on an ARC break.  That is why problems and ARC breaks appear to be cousins. “It’s gone,” and “Where can I find it?” are borderline to the ARC break.  So it is easy to confuse them.  But failures to solve ARC breaks should have clued you in to the fact that there is something else wrong.  Fifty percent of the reactive bank is devoted to the compulsion to make a reactive bank.  On every process except R6, you should ask about problems, not ARC breaks, unless you realize that you have goofed in the comm cycle.  In that case, LRH would ask about specific parts of the formula, not do a long list.

You don’t have overts in the absence of a problem.  The problem may be gone, but the solutions are still forthcoming.  You can run responsibility on problems, problems and solutions, and any number of things.

The basic mechanism of the mind is that “it needs a problem situation to lock up time. [Nothing] else can stop [a person] on the time track.”  For instance, World War II is still being fought in literature.  It was a problem with a lot of solutions, and civilization is to a large degree still stuck in it, as witness the Sunday Supplements, TV programs, etc.  A night club could be mocked up like an air raid shelter and make a fortune.  World War II was a postulate/counter-postulate that is still more real to people than PT.  “Any point of the time track where a civilization is stuck [is seen] as more real than any new period.”  It is the same with PCs.  If your PC isn’t paying close attention, you can assume that the PC is stuck somewhere in back time.  You can get his attention by finding out where he is locked in time and entering that prior time period.  If you trigger the back time period, you will find yourself there with him.

You get the PC’s overts by going after problems, but, if he is below causation, he won’t recognize them as overts, because they are necessary solutions.  Just ask for the problem.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 MAY 1965

Remimeo
TECH DIV
QUAL DIV

URGENT

CCHs

(Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 15 May 62)

The CCHs are PROCESSES. They are not drills.

HCO Pol Ltr of 15 May 1962 (replacing 2 Nov 61 HCO Pol Ltr) was written by staff. It is CANCELLED. Processes are not drills. Nobody may convert hereafter a process to a drill.

The Upper Indoc TRs are the drills that teach the CCHs.

The CCHs are then run on pcs.

S-C-S processes may not be drills.

Processes are done on pcs.

Drills are done by students to accustom them to the actions that will be necessary in doing processes.

Upper Indoc contains TRs 5 to 9. These are done as the ONLY practical actions leading to the student being able to run the processes called the CCHs.

To use a PROCESS as a DRILL leaves it unflat on students and is one of the many reasons why auditing has been taken out of Academies.

During the past few years, unbeknownst to me, a whole sphere of action built up which made students drill processes. I swear, there has been a “practical drill” made out of half the processes we have.

These were all abolished as DRILLS in HCO Pol Ltr 16 April AD15.

Drills are just actions the student has to become familiar with before doing processes. The actual process is NEVER used as a drill. Because it is left unflat. A drill takes the action the auditor will use when doing a process and gets him familiar with it. That’s all.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6505C18 SHSpec-61 Organization and Ethics

[References: HCOPL 1May65 III “Organization -- The Design of the Organization”, and the policy letters on staff status:  pp. vi-vii in OEC Vol. 1.]

Staff status policy letters have been issued.  On the new org board, we will remedy an old evil by putting after the person’s name his certification and classification as an auditor, his grade as a PC, and his staff status.  In the past, in trying to appoint someone at a distance, LRH had trouble knowing who was there.  Now, copies of org boards will be exchanged between orgs, and it will be easy, in filling posts, to see who is qualified for promotion.

To be a staff member in Tech, one needs to have a technical certificate that covers basics of the organization.  An admin terminal needs a basic cert on the org.  Then he is qualified as provisional (Staff Status I).  They can be transferred without permission.  Staff Status II is “general staff member”.  This individual has worked for and attained a solid position.  From there on, it goes up to “in-charge” (Head of a sub-section.  This is the lowest exec rating.).  An “officer” is in charge of a section.  For instance, the cramming officer is in charge of the cramming section.  Then there are titles that are not associated with rank or status, e.g. “communicator”.  A post can also have “deputies”.  A post assigned locally is “deputy”.  One assigned from St. Hill would be “acting” for awhile.  Then the “acting” prefix is removed, and the person has full status.  “Acting” or “deputy” do not refer to rank.  They refer to permanency.  A deputy is somebody who is in there temporarily.  A small breath of air could dislodge him.  “Acting” denotes a St. Hill appointment.  After a short time, up to a year, the “acting” prefix is dropped.  Then the person becomes the “(title)” without the prefix.  A “Deputy HCO Exec Sec” is someone holding the post until confirmed. It is not at all permanent.  “Acting HCO Exec Sec” is a St. Hill appointment and therefore official.  To be an “acting”, the person would have to have the appropriate staff status for the post.  This is not true of a deputy.  But a deputy doesn’t draw the pay of an acting.  You put a person on a post to see how they do.  You can’t wait, to fill posts, for someone with the proper staff status.  So we have the “deputy” rating.  This appointment must be confirmed by St. Hill, to get an “acting” rating and full pay.  “Acting” applies until a person knows his hat cold and can apply it.

Policy letters are pouring out, covering everything from organizational theory to nit-picky details of minor hats.

Ethics is there to hold the lines and to get technology in, i.e. to make it possible for tech to go in.  That is its sole purpose, and it is fabulously successful in fulfilling that purpose.  “Ethics is the tourniquet before the doctor arrives.”  Its purpose is to quiet the turbulence down long enough to allow the auditor to come in.  You carry ethics in until you get tech in.  It has looked like the publication of someone as an SP has the same effect as a public hanging.  Cancelling someone’s certs has the effect of getting him back in, all straightened up, within two to two and a half years.  Not cancelling the certs results in his going off into the wilds and never showing up again. Peter Crundall, for example, had his certs cancelled five or six years ago, when he was screaming and howling about something.  He had to get 500 hours of auditing at his own expense.  Now he is being the featured lecturer at an org.  It took about two years for him to get his auditing started, and he got it all handled.  So it is an unkind thing to do, not to bring order into a scientology area.

Man has a tremendous reaction to “justice”.  The purpose of ethics is to get in tech.  But Man’s law and Man’s justice is not like that.  Man wants to squash people who get in his way.  His “justice” has no end product, save punishment.  It does not straighten out the community.  Therefore it doesn’t work.  Police forces have bad morale, because there is no end product of penal action.  People know this and react against it.  And some, on an A=A=A basis, will react against ethics in scientology the same way:  You jar people’s banks when you present the idea of ethics.  Be that as it may, a greater proportion of people in scientology today favor a decent ethics system than are batting back at it.  This is because they see that a good ethics system will give them better training, processing, and a better grip of on scientology.  You can’t sentence someone to technology or to getting better.  You can sentence him to not getting better.  No one is forcing us to help people.  If someone keeps getting in the way, it is pretty normal to stop wanting to assist him.  

If you feel like blowing up organizations, you should very carefully look up the justice actions of organizations and huge governments etc., and compare these things.  If you do this, you find some astonishing data.  The taut ship, the viciously conducted regiment, the harshly run empire -- all these survive and flourish with high esprit de corps almost forever.  The sloppy ones succumb rapidly.  LRH got interested in this phenomenon while reading Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  The only long periods of progressive rule, recovery from barbarian attacks, and freedom from internal upsets were periods when the emperor was a nut.  The “good” emperors got killed within a few months.  This didn’t jibe with LRH’s experience in handling discipline on a ship.  He realized that what works for a small, intimate group to keep the peace is different from what is needed for a big group which gets lots of confusion.  In an org, the points of enturbulation are the ones where the public impinges, e.g. the line of getting the PC from the Reg to the D of P. This line keeps going out.  LRH used to wonder if there was something wrong with us, to allow us to get enturbulated in this way.  Then he looked at society in general and saw how much worse off their condition is.  Society is deteriorating.  We are gradiently doing better and better.

As we expand, we reach straight out into the tumult of society.  We had to have tools to extend our reach so that we could get our jobs done in time. LRH found that as people moved up towards OT, a certain disdain occurred.  He saw that ethics would be necessary, so that OT’s would take orderly bites out of people, when they got annoyed by the disaster to that extent.  There is a need for an ethics system, because a sufficiently powerful being, annoyed at something, is “liable to straighten [it] up with such thoroughness that hardly anybody would ever recover....  And unless they have some orderly method of straightening things up,” they will straighten things up in their own way, and it will make a Hell of a mess.  The laws of ethics need to be known and understood.  They need to be predictable.  They cannot be capricious.  The question is, “Are you for just shooting somebody down without warning, or do you want ethics?  Do you want law that just freakishly strikes down everybody in sight, or do you want the kind of law that says, “Here is the path, narrow as it may seem.’?” In acting on these lines, we have ethics rattling around in the orgs.  People are getting used to the tools.  You can give someone a shock with a heavy use of ethics.  It can be very effective, used lightly.  Used in this way, ethics backs up tech most amazingly.

LRH has just discovered the PTS case: its cause and handling.  Never audit a PTS.  The rollercoaster case is one that we have never been able to handle before.  He is connected to an SP, and until ethics makes him disconnect or handle the SP, he will continue to rollercoaster.  Ethics can label the suppressive, if nothing else.  You give the PTS case the policy letter covering PTS’ness.  You don’t have to issue an ethics order unless tech doesn’t go in, i.e. unless he can’t or won’t handle or disconnect.  You can insist that a PTS bring the SP in, if necessary, for auditing.  If things went that far, you could threaten the PTS person with not getting the SP audited unless the PTS person gets him in before he is labeled an SP.  

Suppressives are pretty crazy.  The SP has got to fight.  He is back on the track, fighting the Ugbugs.  He is in an old PTP.  He is taking the actions, in PT, that would solve the problem with the Ugbugs.  He is back on the track, fighting an enemy that no longer exists.”  99.999999999% of his attention units are at some exact, precise past period of the track, and in that ... instant, he is fighting off something and is trying to handle something by some means, [which are] the [ones] he is using in PT.”  He has no problems with you, and vice versa.”  He isn’t up there with you, and you aren’t back there with him....”  That’s the whole anatomy of psychosis:  “Given associative restimulators and A=A=A, you’ve got a mad-dog type.”  He’s just defending himself, in some mad insanity, against things which are no longer there.”  [Hence the use of power processes on psychotics.] You can assume that the SP has problems in PT, but those are not the problem that he wants to solve.  That problem is on the back track, and it is loaded with cross-associations and identifications.  He misidentifies anyone who approaches or tries to help him, in an effort to defend himself.  He is driven down to the first dynamic to such a degree that no one must get any better. When he is driven down into the first dynamic, he must destroy all around him.  No one must get any better, because they are the flying saucer people. Once scientology is known to be an effective way to help people, watch out! International City is being looked at by a group connected to the U.N.  We are having an effect.

The true anti-scientologist isn’t trying to be convinced.  He is trying to stop you!  You are the green alligator he is fighting 7000 years ago, and if you (or anyone else -- they are all the green alligator) got any better, you would be stronger, and that would tear it, and you would eat him up (he thinks).  Insanity is just a total stuckness on the track in a fight.  This is a point that you prove instantly and utterly when you are running power (Class VII) processes on someone.  Power handles the SP and the insane.  The SP can be processed to sanity in under fifty hours, but you had better have the organization and the ethics to hold things together.  You have to label PTS’s and SP’s, to get the tech in.  “An ethics action lasts until, tech is in.... You use English to get tech in....  You stop it when you’ve got tech in,” even if stopping at that point leaves unfinished cycles of action along the way. “It’s not a question of ‘Where does the ethics proceed?’ ... It’s, ‘How long do you have to hold the area down?’”

An organization will run, as long as it has channels, and as long as particles on the channels don’t carom off the sides of the channels and collide with the working parts of the organization.  If you can bring that about, you can have an organization that would have a total capability of pouring through it practically the whole of the human race.  Lacking clean and definite flow channels, your volume stays small because of all the barriers and stoppages that occur.  If the channel isn’t kept open, you can’t handle the load.

Scientology “is probably the only outfit that ever hit this planet that meant exactly what it said and was doing exactly what it was doing [and what it said it was doing] and was doing exactly nothing else.”  Scientology doesn’t have the time to do half the things that it has been accused of.

An SP, saying, “I never said that!”, believes that he really didn’t.  And he is right, in a sense.”  How the Hell could he say anything?  He hasn’t been there for seven trillion years.”  

“I’m sure that [many entheta-ish people believe] that we’ve ... gone stark, staring mad, with all this ‘justice’.  No.  We’re just having a little fun with justice, just now, and when we learn about it, why, we’ll be able to control fairly well a wide sphere of public in such a way that they don’t all get destroyed....  The main danger to them is not ethics.  It’s having their silly heads blown off because they make somebody mad.”

You’ve got to have ethics in to handle non-scientologists.  If you put discipline in right at the start, you can work very nicely with non-scientologists.  Make sure that they know what ethics is, how it works, etc.  Society is losing its grip.  We are putting in order, to make an orderly show for the future.

6505C25 SHSpec-62 The Five Conditions

“If it isn’t written, it isn’t true” is laid down, so that rumors and verbal orders don’t foul things up.

“A condition is an operating state.”  Each condition has a formula that must be applied, in order to change the state [for the better].  Don’t mis-apply formulas.  If you know the conditions and their formulas, you blow a lot of the mystery that the rest of the world is sitting in.  

EMERGENCY

Emergency is the most common state on this planet.  It is the condition of stats going the wrong way (usually down) over some significant period.  For instance, it is declared by a down stat for four consecutive weeks.  If a stat that should go up goes down, or vice versa, you’ve got Emergency.  The condition has to be declared by Secretarial Executive Directive, which is a causative order.  Certain steps then have to be done.  The first action is: promote, if an organization, or produce, if an individual.  When this has been done, but not before, economize.  Don’t economize on promoting.  If you do, you “inhibit getting out anything, in order to produce enough money to raise the stat.”  If this happens, you will find yourself smaller and weaker after recovering from the crisis.

(Taxation is a page out of Das Kapital: “From each according to his ability to pay; to each according to his need.”)

Don’t economize until after you have promoted or produced.  If an artist in need of money economized first on materials, he would have little or nothing to draw with; therefore he would have little to sell, so he would have trouble getting out of the financial hole.  After promotion is well in hand, economize and prepare to deliver.  If you apply the Affluence formula and economize, when you are in Emergency you will either stay in Emergency or, if you recover, the organization will be smaller and of less scope.  Also, part of the Emergency formula is to change your operating basis, or you will head back into another condition of emergency.  You’ve got to stiffen discipline. You have to stop going down to the pub every night.  Do your homework.  Be a little more regular on the job.  Work a little harder.  Don’t goof quite so much.  If the activity does not come out of the condition of emergency after that state has been assigned, then you have to use discipline, because life itself is going to discipline the individual very cruelly.

[Cog:  That is why protecting a person from the consequences of his actions is out-ethics.  You should give the person a consequence beforehand, that parallels life but anticipates it.]  If the steps of Emergency are not taken successfully (even if they are taken), and the condition of Emergency is prolonged, it has to walk forward into an ethics matter, because someone must be sitting on most of the comm lines, goofing like crazy.  There must be some ethical problem involved, for the condition to be continuing.  

NORMAL OPERATION

This is the next condition up from Emergency.  It isn’t a stable, unchanging state, because everything in the MEST universe either expands or contracts.  Nothing stays really unchanging.  There are “laws” against it.  So in order for Normal Operation to be a stable state, it must be a continual small increase.  There must be a “gradual, routine increase”.  The way you maintain a small increase is to just let everything continue.  Don’t change anything.  Don’t put in any harsh discipline.  Ethics and justice is mild and reasonable.  Carefully observe every slightest rise of a statistic to see what bettered it and do that.  For every slight worsening, find out why.  Usually it is something non-standard.  Remedy it.  Jockey, change, and repair, back and forth.  Keep an OIC board.  This keeps your improving statistics going up.

A statistic that stays level isn’t Normal Operation.  It’s Emergency, because one should be expanding, if only to keep up with inflation.  The stat must keep pace with the world around it.  For instance, a salary that doesn’t rise over two to three years is a “stable” (really a down) statistic and will tend to crash.  What looks level is really declining.  If one then economizes, which is the Affluence formula, then you will really be in an Emergency: Continuing this practice will result in collapse, sooner or later.  Matter, and everything else in this universe, obeys these laws or conditions.  The Roman Empire went into Affluence brought about bv Julius Caesar, but it violated the AFFLUENCE FORMULA.

They didn’t deliver, and they didn’t economize.  Instead, they squandered the wealth of the Empire on so-called conquest.  They treated the condition as Normal.  Julius Caesar violated the commercial Pax Romana Normal Op, which was stable, by going off conquering tribes, etc.  Britain was trading with Rome very happily.  Then Caesar came over and fought, added Britain to the Empire, gave them slavery, not civilization, and the Empire collapsed.

In the year 0 A.D. or 1 A.D., the Chinese conquered Russia in Siberia, driving people West.  A wave of displacement took place, with the Russians driving Eastern European peoples into Western Europe.  Rome didn’t handle them; it didn’t resettle them, or whatever, They had boundaries to defend, so they resisted the barbarian invasions and got overwhelmed.  It was all a matter of the wrong condition being applied.  The Russians, who were in Emergency, didn’t apply that condition either.

There is no such thing as a no-condition state.  A state of emergency persists until it is handled.  Even if one loses, one gets stuck in the incident and goes on.  Even after something has gone down to collapse, it persists.  The condition continues all the way down, even beyond death.  “The dwindling spiral is really just applying the wrong formula for the condition.”  

AFFLUENCE

The condition of Affluence is one which is dangerous, surprisingly enough.  For instance, a gambler who hits it big is in danger of getting himself in debt instantly.  The first thing to do now is economize.  You must economize first.  Then make very sure that you don’t buy anything with any future commitment to it [E.g. installment purchases].  Don’t hire anybody with any future commitments.  That is all part of that economizing.  Clamp it down.  Find every bill and debt you can pay and pay them.  Now, invest the remainder in service facilities.  Make it more possible to deliver.  Discover what caused the condition of Affluence, and strengthen it.  Conduct research to discover what caused it.  It is something you are doing, no doubt.  

POWER AND POWER CHANGE

The condition above Affluence is power change.  For instance, someone is very successful and gets a promotion.  The correct formula is usually violated.  The new man errs by changing things.  The formula for Power Change is, just because power has changed, “Don’t change anything.”  “A new broom sweeps clean,” violates this formula.  If the operation was successful as it was running, the new exec would be silly to change things.  But that is what people usually do.  It is easy to inherit successful hats.  Just step in the boots and don’t walk.  All the pressure points will come to you to make changes.  But the person before you must have resisted these successfully.  If your predecessor didn’t sign it, don’t sign it.  Don’t do anything.  Keep your eyes open.  Learn the ropes.  See how the place is running.  Apply Normal Operation to it, if it is in Normal Op.

There are only two circumstances that need replacement:  success or disaster.  If it is successful, there is nothing to change.  If someone can keep an organization doing well, he is eventually promoted creditably and moves up to a higher power position.  He would be leaving his organization [or his post] in a condition of Power.  If you move into the position of someone who left in disgrace, so the place is in Emergency, just apply the Emergency formula: promote, for starters.  Keep the promotion going until stats start to rise.  Then economize like mad.

A condition of Power is most interesting.  It is peculiar, in that it apparently belies what you would normally think or expect to do as an operating thetan, because that is a condition of power.  What you mustn’t do is disconnect.  That will bring about catastrophe, for you and for anyone else.  “It’s the violation of that condition alone that’s brought about implanting, trapping and an antagonism towards thetans.”  A guy who becomes powerful on Wall Street and disconnects from his old home town friends exemplifies this.  They resent it.  People are, in fact, so used to the Power formula being violated that they don’t expect celebrities that they used to know to talk to them.  They think you are going to disconnect.  It is hard to get people to continue talking to you, because they feel that you are superior.  You have to break down the communication barrier.  When you come back from Saint Hill, people may be in awe of you somewhat.  Again, it is up to you to break down the comm barrier.  People will be sure that you don’t want to be in comm anymore.  Beings in the universe fully expect you to violate the Power formula.  If an organization gets to the point where it is fully self-sufficient, in no need of PCs, students, etc., and disconnects from those around it, people in the community will start thinking about implants, mistakes, and violating any freedom a thetan might have.  They will get very suppressive.  They are being denied service, for one thing.  One of the most dangerous things we could do would be not to make what we know available.  

When you move out of a position on a Power Change, the only way you can disconnect is to “take ownership and responsibility for your connections.” The condition of Power Change is a fellow assuming a position that has been held from Power.  To disconnect, you have to make a record of all of your lines.  You show what is there, so that the replacement can then see what not to change.  Make a record of your whole post, or you will be stuck with a piece of that post to the end of time.  Also, you might check in once in awhile, to see how your replacement is doing.  A guy gets a time track by not taking responsibility for something.

In this universe, it is a foul trick to permit death.  People write a Last Will and Testament, but they don’t take responsibility for their former positions by transferring their lines and writing up the post for their successors.  [Probably also have trouble checking in from time to time!] Do all you can to make the post occupiable.

For fun, look at the condition of a government and the formula it is applying.

(Keynes’ economic law is “Increase want.”) 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 MAY 1965
Remimeo
Sthil Cl VII Course
Students	Qual & Tech Divs
Sthil Staff	All HATS
Ethics HATS
Star-Rated Check	HCO Div
All HATS

PROCESSING

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

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

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

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

WHAT TURNS IT ON WILL TURN IT OFF.

This is the oldest rule in auditing.

Of course people get into secondaries and engrams, go through misemotion and heavy somatics. This happens because things are running out. To end off a process or a session because of the clock is to ignore the real purpose of auditing.

The oldest rules we have are

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

These now are expressed as POLICY. A falsified auditor’s report is also subject to a Court of Ethics.  Any auditor violating this policy letter is liable to an immediate Court of Ethics convened within 24 hours of the offence or as soon as is urgently possible.

Auditing at all levels works well when it is done by the book.

The purpose of Ethics is to open the way for and get in Tech.  Then we can do our job.

THERE IS NO MODERN PROCESS THAT WILL NOT WORK WHEN EXACTLY APPLIED.
Therefore in the eyes of Ethics all auditing failures are Ethics failures—PTS, Suppressive Persons as pcs, or non-compliance with tech for auditors.

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

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

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

L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JUNE 1965
Remimeo
Sthil Students
CLASS II MODEL SESSION

(Amends and cancels HCO Bulletin of May 19, 1964)

The Class II Model Session has the benefit of requiring no other Rudiments process (except in the Havingness Questions) than the question itself. There are, therefore, no additional processes except Havingness.

Beware of any Q and A in using this script (HCO Bulletin May 24, 1962 [ l ] ).

Don’t stray off Model Session into unusual questions or processes. Use Model Session as the surround for processes to be run on the pc. Don’t use it as a process.

Questions are asked of the pc and not checked on the needle. Auditor watches meter and records TA.

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, “Put your hands in your lap.” “Squeeze the cans, please.” And note that pc registers on the meter by the squeeze read 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. (What you intend to run.)

START OF SESSION:

“Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?”

“START OF SESSION.”
“Has this session started for you?” (If pc says, “No,” say again, “START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?”)

BEGINNING RUDIMENTS:

GLL: “What goals would you like to set for this session?”

O/W: 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 not done?’ “ (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.”

Aud: “Are you willing to talk to me about your troubles?” “What trouble aren’t you willing to talk to me about?”

W/h. “Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything you are withholding?” (If pc says, “Yes”) “What was it?”

PTP. “Do you have a present time problem?” “What is the problem?”

START OF PROCESS:

“Now I would like to run this process on you (name it). What would you say to that?” (Get pc’s agreement; if not obtainable, choose another process unless old process is not complete.)

MIDDLE RUDIMENTS:

“In this session is there anything you have suppressed, not-ised, failed to reveal, or been careful of?” “What was it?”

END OF PROCESS NON-CYCLICAL:

“If it is all right with you, I will give this command two more times and then end this process.” (Gives command two more times.)
“Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?” “End of process.”

END OF PROCESS CYCLICAL:

“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.”

END RUDIMENTS:

1/2-Un T. “In this session, have you told me any half-truth, untruth, or said something only to impress me, or tried to damage anyone?” “What was it?”

? or C: “In this session, have you failed to answer any question or command?” “What question or command did you fail to answer?”

Dec: “In this session, is there anything you have decided?” “What was it?”

W/h: “In this session, have you thought, said, or done anything I have failed to find out?” “What was it?”

Aud: “In this session, has anything been misunderstood?” “What was it?”

GOALS & GAINS:

“Have you made any of these goals for this session?” “Thank you for making these goals for this session,” or “Thank you for making some of these goals for this session. I’m sorry you didn’t make all of them,” or “I’m sorry you didn’t make these goals for this session.”

“Have you made any gains in this session that you would care to mention?” “Thank you for making these gains for this session,” or “I’m sorry you didn’t make any gains for this session.”

HAVINGNESS:

(After adjusting the meter) “Put your hands in your lap. 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.)

END OF SESSION:

“Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?”

“Is it all right with you if I end this session now?”

“END OF SESSION. Has this session ended for you?” (If pc says, “No,” repeat, “END OF SESSION.” If session still not ended, say, “The session has been ended. “)

Most flagrant errors that can be made:

1. 	Fumbling with script, not knowing Model Session.

2. 	Failing to get in the R Factor by telling pc what you are going to do at each new step.

3. 	Doing only what the pc suggests.

4. 	Adding unusual questions or remarks or making sudden irrelevant statements.

5. 	Using parts of Model Session as repetitive processes which deter the completion of auditing cycles already begun.

6. 	Failure to complete the Auditing Comm Cycle on any part of Model Session.

								L. RON HUBBARD 

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

6506C08 SHSpec-63 Handling the PTS

LRH is working on the final plots of R6 GPM’s.  Some corrections have been needed.  He has found three GPM’s run out of the middle of the bank by mistake, which turned on bursitis.  He has the first six GPM’s of the track run out absolutely correctly.

Doubt and wonder about ethics is appearing in some places.  All we are doing is developing systems to handle the public.  Students and staff are colliding with ethics, which has the benefit of giving them familiarity with it.  “If you don’t have a system of law and order, you will never have law and order.  You will just have cruelty, duress, suddenness, revenge,” sudden acts of surprising retribution, etc.  Without uniform justice, you would get chaos, especially with OT’s in operation.  Clausewitz said that war is a means of bringing about a more amenable frame of mind on the part of the enemy.  In his ignorance of this principle, FDR kept World War II going after Germany and Japan were ready to surrender, by demanding unconditional surrender.  This was a costly and stupid thing to do.  If you fail to halt war when a more amenable frame of mind has been reached, you are a fool.  War should not go beyond that point.  This principle should be kept in mind by scientologists and orgs, when under attack.  There are elements of the society that are at war with scientology, because they are stuck in past incidents of fighting enemies. You should take action against someone who is trying to keep you from doing your job, but how much action?  Just enough to being about a more amenable frame of mind.  All you want to enforce on the entheta artist in the environment is a certain degree of politeness.  Don’t get fixated on the entheta.

We want to bring service to the 80+% who are doing well and contentedly. Since fixating on the 20% who are snarling and fuming takes attention from the 80%, we should simply cut comm with the 20%.  Once there is a set procedure for handling SP’s, once the executive can enforce a little more politeness on his environment, the exec can then reach, because he has a method of doing so.  Now there is something he can do about it.  

You want the auditor and the executive in a frame of mind to service the 80%, not the 20%.  Execs tend to wind up with the entheta comm, because they are supposed to handle it.

One tends to get fixated on the “maybe” cases -- the ones that aren’t running perfectly smoothly.  There are only two sources of difficulty with cases:

1.  The auditing comm cycle.

2.  PTS.  You can make mistakes everywhere else and still get by.  Of course, there is also the GAE as a source of difficulty.  You can check out both: the auditor to review to have his comm cycle checked out and the PC to ethics to see if he is PTS.  The D of P doesn’t get a chance to talk in detail to the auditor and the PC.  This can be done in Qual.  You don’t just let the poor comm cycle continue, hoping that it will get better.  If the auditor is uncooperative, he goes to ethics, until he has a more amenable frame of mind.

In an exec cannot handle the isolated goofers, he will get savage towards everybody.  If you cannot handle the criminal, you pass suppressive laws that penalize everybody.  [Inspection before the fact.] Governments police everybody because of the goofs of a few.  Most arbitrary rulings by any authority result from failures to handle the guy who goofed, with subsequent desperation and savagery.  [Cf. earlier statement by LRH that an organization is only necessary when there is a failure to handle an individual.]

A PC who just won’t run on average processing is PTS or an SP, inevitably and invariably.  LRH found that we couldn’t handle the PTS individual with auditing, especially with processing below the level of Power processing. PTS’s are likely to come to you for help, so you had better know that they need ethics or power processing.  Anything else will make the PTS individual rollercoaster, because someone is ARC breaking him faster than you can fix him up.  When you say that “a person has been suppressed by the environment faster than you could process him out of it,” what you mean is that there is an SP in the environment who wrecks his gains.  The PTS PC often doesn’t spot the SP.

You must get the PTS individual to ethics and find the SP.  Suppressive persons commonly speak in total generalities.  They broaden and generalize entheta, so their identity broadens and generalizes.  People commonly can’t spot the SP because of the generality around him.  Check the PTS individual for who he is connected to that doesn’t like scientology.  Do this check on a meter, and watch it fall off the pin.  Have the PT individual handle or disconnect.  If you get the wrong person, the PC won’t handle or disconnect. If you are right, he will.  The PTS gives enough trouble, so that you may not care to help him forther.  But when you do attempt to find the SP, you should hunt and punch around enough to get a good result.  If you find the right person as the SP, the PC’s face will light up, the TA will blow down, and the PC will then handle or disconnect with VGI’s.

No TA = no case gain = PTS or SP.  Trying to process a PTS will:

1.  Raise his tone.

2.  Thereby double the SP’s attacks on him.

3.  Therefore cave him in worse than he was to begin with.  You can tell a PTS by looking for roller-coaster: periodic gains and collapse.  No gain ever, or no TA (less than ten divs) = SP.  That is all you need to look for.  You’ve got to have ethics to handle this.  

With this data, you can make releases, handle students’ cases, Free Scientology Center cases, etc.  You don’t have to slam the door in anybody’s face.  The PTS gets told to handle or disconnect before he gets more auditing.  The SP gets told that he has a very rough case, which can only be handled at St. Hill.  “In a couple of years, we’ll have auditors here who can handle you here,” you could say.  “In the meantime, stay away, because it’s very restimulative to you.”  This is true, too!

It is an unkindness not to label someone suppressive, who actually is an SP.  One way to handle someone who sends in entheta comm is simply to deadfile him.  You have to bring about a more amenable frame of mind on his part before you audit him or comm with him.  Don’t let auditors go on flubbing.  Send them to ethics, so that they realize the importance of applying the tech right.

Know also that we will have an impact on this society; that organizations will fold up under the onslaught of the technology, no matter how nice and theetie-weetie we are.  We’ve got to hold the line and give service while we expand.  We would like to have organizations smoothly reorganize.

To run power processing, we need all the back-up of the organizations: ethics, D of P, and full admin.  There is no one nastier than someone who has been dished by power processes, by the way.  It would be disaster to have someone trying to run power in the field.  It isn’t the D of P’ing or the auditing that is hard to do.  It is the fact that it needs to become an assembly line, which requires a high degree of perfection of organization. Even on lower-level processes, it is best to have a team, to handle PTS’s, SP’s, and admin.  Psychoanalysis had a certain degree of workability.  It got across the idea that psychosomatic illness stems from the mind.  The mind monitors and dominates structure.  “If the mind is left alone, in a large number of cases, the endocrine treatment [as in the time when LRH psychoanalyzed half of a group of people who were taking male hormones and found that those he talked with responded better to the hormones than the others] will not monitor structure....  But when you remove a few psychic blocks, ... all of a sudden ... it bites, and monitors structure....  You could change ... diet, exercise, ... operating environment ... -- anything,” and it would make no difference.  LRH just used Freudian analysis on that project: “what we would call, today, ‘straightwire’.”  But as a subject, psychoanalysis has failed, because the individual practitioner had no way to ride herd on or handle the PTS’s and SP’s in his practice.  Furthermore, he had no free time or attention to do research.  He might have discovered power processing if he had.  The subject never grew, because it never developed an organization that would carry forward the research.

Our danger is only that, as we move forward, the technology will get shattered by alter-is.  That must be guarded against.  Then the technology must be applied.  Now it collides with society, psychiatry, doctors, etc.” You say, “All I want to do is go free.’ OK.  You go into a condition of power.  Now the most serious thing you can do is to disconnect.  It’s the quickest way to bring about a collapse.  You have been woven into the race and the universe too long to just suddenly pack it up.  You pack it up; it’ll pack you up.”  

We have a double route [to enlightenment]: by study and by processing. We haven’t begun to explore what can be done by study alone.  One area you can’t go through with study and thought alone is the R6 bank.  Mere study won’t help a person, beyond release.  He’d finish up at Level V [Grade V]. There is a tiger between release and clear.  You aren’t going to go through the H6 bank by just changing your mind.  That has to be gotten rid of utterly.  Release might or might not occur just from the cognitions you would get from increased understanding.

The Gradation Chart actually goes as many as seventy levels below -34. The interpretation of the scale is tricky, because it is what the person is aware of, not what he manifests.  That a person is always “numb” does not place him at -10 on the scale [Numbness].  What is important is, “Is this person aware of the fact that he is always numb?” If a guy could only be aware of false causes, without knowing that they were false, then he would be at “false cause” on the scale.  If he knew that a false cause was false, he would be above that level, as when he is willing to accept your statement that babies come from under cabbage leaves, because it is a false cause.  Let’s say the guy says, “Hey:  What do you know:  I just realized that I’m always after changes!” Well, there he is, at -4 [Need of Change].  You might say that the PC’s level on the Awareness Scale is his “cognition level”.  The guy who never cogs is just not being trained or processed at the level where he could cognite.  He is over his head.  Cogs come on a gradient, too.

Power processing takes anyone, no matter where he is, and “yanks them up with a thud to [Level] IV.  “The PC recovers a terrific ability to know, to be aware, without necessarily attaining any more [knowledge] than [he] knew before.”  Probably, this will just be redoubled at clear and OT.  Here, also, he can create things, which he couldn’t do before.  He will not know more about how to do that by having been [a clear or an OT], but his present level of beingness is such that his ability to grasp and act upon the potential [of a situation], to assimilate and accomplish at that particular line [whatever line he is in] is just lightning-fast.  He only knows what he knew before as well as he knew it before.  No matter how clear you clear him, he only knows what he knew before.  You don’t increase his knowledge.  You increase his awareness of his present [environment].

An individual will never make it without being trained in something.” The first thing he’s going to be aware of, as he moves out of a comatose Wog state into a higher level of action, ... is scientology....  It’s the first thing there to be aware of, ... to study, and [it] leads to a higher ability level.”  The cruelest thing you could do to somebody would be to audit him all the way to clear with no auditor training.  “He has this terrific potential to know, and you haven’t made it possible for him to assimilate the technology which has brought him to this state.”  It puts him in a dreadful confusion. He has no understanding.  He wonders, “How did I get here? Where’s “here’?” It would be better to audit him up to release, then train him up as far as he’s been audited (Level IV), then give him tools to go on up to clear, then give him an organization to use those benefits in.  He needs to know how others function.  Let him know.  Then you have given him a familiarity with the existence around him.  He has increased his span of knowledge of what is in scientology.  He has increased his organizational scope.  He has come up to an understanding of the  usefulness of the various tools of scientology, and he has also found out that these new states are moving up into a type of civilization that can also exist.  This will raise his responsibility.

With all this, you are not going to have a lot of catastrophe.  You are going to have happy people.  This is taking a totality of responsibility.  You must take responsibility for powerful knowledge.  Look what happened to the atom bomb.  The nut who invented that took no responsibility for it.  We have a powerful technology.  for the first time, we have a total grip on knowledge of the universe and can bring people up with an express elevator.  We take as much responsibility as possible.  You have to take responsibility for knowledge to the degree that it is powerful.  We had better measure up to our power, in all ways.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1965
Remimeo
ALL TECH DIV
ALL QUAL DIV
ETHICS SECTION
CLASS VII INTERNES

STAFF AUDITOR ADVICES

No Staff Auditor or Interne or organization auditor or any auditor on a Staff Co-audit may seek advices on what to do from any person except the officially appointed person doing the auditing folders.

Seeking advice on cases verbally or in writing from the person not doing the folders is OFF LINE except in Ethics matters when Ethics may be consulted or Saint Hill advised.

When an auditor seeks advice off-line and accepts it, unbeknownst to the official supervising the auditing via the folders, a random factor is introduced into the running of cases that can be quite fatal.

At Saint Hill, on Power Processes, such an action is a crime as the consequences can be so catastrophic to cases run on Power Processes.

The proper sources of instruction are tapes and HCOBs. Adding bits to these that aren’t there is the commonest auditor error.

Asking for unusual solutions from a case supervisor who is doing the folders is a sure sign that the last directives have not been followed; giving instructions that are unusual is useless because they won’t be complied with either.

The Dev-T situation of asking for advice off-line burdens lines and fouls up cases.

COMM CYCLE AND ETHICS

When an auditor has a fractured comm cycle very often processing still works on the average pc.

When an auditor has a fractured comm cycle and the pc is an Ethics type case (SP, PTS, W/Hs) a mess ensues. One can always tell if an auditor’s comm cycle is poor or if the Code is being broken because when put on an Ethics type pc, things collapse.

When a pc won’t run, one can be sure that

1. 	The Auditor’s Comm Cycle is out and

2. 	The pc is an Ethics type case.

When both these are present, no results can possibly occur.

When only one is present, usually the auditing works somewhat.

CASE SUPERVISOR PUZZLE

When a Case Supervisor doing folders sees a process going wrong, he should not blame the process or his own advice if these are even faintly educated.

Instead the pc is an Ethics type or the Auditor’s Comm Cycle is out.

If neither of these seem to be the case and things still go wrong then the auditor just isn’t running what he says he is or running what he is supposed to run.

If all the above seems not to be the case, then the auditor is seeking off-line advices and some screwball interpretation has been added to the process.

A clever Case Supervisor marking folders, goes by the text—case running well, continue the standard approach. Case not running well, send to Review for analysis REGARDLESS OF ANY AUDITING TIME LOST.

When a pc goes to Review, it is clever to send the auditor to the Review Cramming Section to check over his Auditor’s Code and Comm Cycle with TRs.

If when auditor and pc still don’t run well, send the pc to Ethics. (Review may already have done so.)

ETHICS

If the Case Supervisor ever finds an auditor not following instructions or seeking or taking off-line directions he must at once send the auditor to Ethics. It is usually an Ethics Hearing and a minor suspension.

If a Case Supervisor doing the folders finds a false report has been made, he must send the offender to Ethics.

WITHHOLDS

A pc is not sent to Ethics because of withholds gotten off in a session. However, on the Invalidation button one commonly finds suppressive persons around the pc and the auditor must send the pc to Ethics at session end to get the matter disconnected or handled.

Sometimes one finds another person’s offences than the pc’s in getting off withholds. These are reported to Ethics for investigation.

TEXT BOOK

D of P work is completely text book. PC doing okay—get on with it as per the process, the next process to be run, or the next grade.

PC not doing okay—to Review to find out why.

If Review finds pc is an Ethics type, sends pc to Ethics.

It’s all text book. It is so easy.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

CLEAR AND OT BEHAVIOUR

We know all the attributes of Clear and Operating Thetans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trick is stopping when the result is obtained !

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

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

	HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JUNE AD15
Remimeo
BPI
Franchise
Sthil Students
RELEASES, DIFFERENT KINDS

There are different kinds of Releases.

They all have the similar meter phenomena: floating needle and on or near clear read on a calibrated Mark IV or Mark V.

There is the plain First Stage Release. This occurs in auditing up to Grade IV. It is not very stable. The person is very well off and definitely a Release. But he or she can now postulate and in postulating sometimes gets into the R6 Bank. The First Stage Release is eased out of the bank but subject to call-back.

Then there is the Power Process Release. This is very stable and should be called a Second Stage Release or a Power Release to be technically exact. You can run only Power Processes on a First Stage Release. These knock out all factors of the track that force a person back into the R6 Bank and leave the person able to go into or get out of the R6 Bank easily. This Second Stage Release is definitely Homo Novis. The person ceases to respond like a homo sapiens and has fantastic capability to learn and act.

The Third Stage Release (called for a few days a Second Stage before terminology was firm) is an improved Second Stage Release in that selective areas of learning are handled to return special skills to the person. The case state does not necessarily improve but certain zones of knowledge have been polished up.

There is another state near that of Release. This is a Keyed-Out-Operating Thetan. At this time it occurs sometimes by accident in Power Processing, but I think I will be able to process a Second Stage Release to it directly some day. The pc is still a pre clear though a Keyed-Out-OT. This really isn’t a Thetan Exterior. The Thetan Exterior is quite unstable and can be attained below an ordinary First Stage Release.

A real Clear is of course on the other side of the Reactive Bank and above all these states. It is completely stable. One needs to know how to audit to get there.

A real Operating Thetan is of course a Clear who has been familiarized with his environment to a point of total cause over Matter, Energy, Space, Time and Thought.

This accounts for all states of being discussed in Dianetics or Scientology. They are all attainable and only one, Keyed-Out-OT, is not done by routine auditing, being an offshoot of it that happens sometimes. The First Stage Release is as high as we got in Dianetics, so you can see we are five states of being above where we first arrived.

We are doing these today on a routine assembly line basis on all cases. Orgs do a lot of First Stage Releases. Saint Hill is doing Power Releases and moving people up to Clear through Academy and Saint Hill training.

A lot of cases would have to spend a lot more time in Power Processing if they weren’t already successfully processed in Grades 0 to IV.

The majority of cases even when trained, will not be able to go Clear without being Released.

And of course nobody is going to go OT before they have been Audited, Released, trained and cleared, all of which are currently standard actions in Scientology today.

We are definitely on our way.

L. RON HUBBARD

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

6506C29 SHSpec-64 The Well-Rounded Auditor

MSH audited LRH to first-stage release on 24Feb63.  They went ahead.  He went keyed-out OT.  Then he did more research and plowed himself into the R6 bank.  Then he developed power processes.  Power processes were totally predicted, not empirical.  “There they should be, ... and there they were.” LRH ran the power processes solo.  When he got to the end, all that was there was beginning of track and the R6 bank.  He backed off and looked for processes that would enable someone to have an ability back.  He got third stage release (Va).  [See HCOB 28Jun65 “Releases, Different Kinds”, HCOB 12Jul65 “States of Being Attained by Processing”, HCOB 5Aug65 “Release Stages”] You can run it too far: into the bank, i.e. into R6EW.  But now you are at the correct end of it.

A third stage release can go into and out of the R6 bank at will.  He is also able to have selective abilities. [This probably made Class VI easier.]

We are getting an interesting reaction from orgs: “Why are you sending us a Class VII [Note: At this point, a Class VII is a power auditor.]?  We’re releasing all the people we want on 0, I, and II.”  The differences between the stages of release are basically differences of stability.  The fellow has been gotten to a state where he can postulate, when he is released.  At Level IV, a person can remain a keyed-out clear until he makes a postulate wrong-way-to and keys himself in again, and the R6 bank kicks him in the teeth.  A power release is more stable.  We still don’t get a keyed-out OT at will, although it does occur sometimes, during power processing.

It is easy to overrun a first stage release.  We have cleared many people, by the Book One definition of “clear”, and then overrun them, because the auditor didn’t recognize a floating needle.  After that, the PC could get very ARC breaky.  All that could be done with a PC like this is to run him on power and bring him to a higher degree of stability.  Power can also be overrun.  If you overrun power and then audit someone on ordinary processes within power processing, you would really be in trouble, because where is only one thing there to hack at, and that’s the H6 bank.  You could audit some selective abilities with power plus -- run him up to third stage release, playing tag with the R6 bank -- then go on to audit R6.  

It is highly unlikely that a person will make clear, unless he has been released on power.  The route through the bank is too hard, when it lies across an engram that will revivify.  You are sitting in an engram, trying to run R6, and it won’t as-is properly.  That is the trouble with it.

It is interesting to watch raw meat on power.  They don’t know about the R6 bank.  They feel wonderful and full of awe, because they don’t know what the Hell happened or what is going on, after being run on power processes.

Technical advances are out of this world, administratively.  R6 and power look very simple and elementary.  The trick in instructing Class VII [Note: Class VII is now power auditing] is to get the simplicity of the processes and procedures duplicated, when the students are used to complexity.  Confusion has to blow off.  You run power processes muzzled.

The study materials have more to them than would at first appear to be the case.  The evaluation of importances is one area.  For instance a darkroom worker who works for LRH on weekends knows lots of tricks, but he doesn’t know fundamental importances.  LRH spotted the similarity to new auditors who aren’t fully trained in fundamentals.  They want tricks and short-cuts, all of which are interesting, but unimportant.  It isn’t the tricks that get anyone anywhere.  That is what psychiatry and psychology do.  They collect tricks like stamp collectors, but they have no effective standard basic tech.  “I have never heard one of them utter one essential piece of information that would have led to the resolution of a case.  Fantastic hors d’oeuvres; no main course.”  So the study phenomenon is “There’s the fellow who knows it and can do it, and the there’s the fellow who knows all the tricks and can’t do it.” It is out evaluation of importances.  You can take a basically sound piece of data, e.g., that a PC who never looks at the auditor or who slews around to sit sideways in the chair is ARC broken, and twist it to something like, “Never acknowledge a PC until he looks at you.”  If you did this on power, the PC would go “round the bend.  He’d go on automatic.

There is mainline information, and then there are tidbits.  An auditor in training should differentiate between:

1.  Mainline data, which is very senior.

2.  Data you should know to apply the senior data.

3.  “Parsley” data: data that, if you use it, it will make you look very clever.  Nice data, but of no great value.  

When someone like LRH shifts a senior datum, people go adrift.  For instance “Audit the PC in front of you,” was senior, before grades and organization. An org auditor doesn’t audit the PC in front of him at all.  The auditor now audits the process.  If he sees BI’s or runs into trouble, he sends the PC to review.  There is a policy letter now, with all the things on it that could be wrong with the PC [HCOPL 7Apr70RA “Green Form”].  It is asking too much to expect the auditor to pick up the right one in session, with no form, out of 44 possibilities, especially when the PC may have overts on that auditor.  The PC should be repaired by some other auditor.  The auditor may be part of what is wrong.  Hence the PC needs another auditor.  

Review auditors must be experts in assessment.  They pick up any read and straighten out whatever needs to be fixed.  Whatever the problem is, it is not standard tech that is the problem.  The review auditor is in a different division [Qual].  The D of P [apparently covers also the CS post at this time] is forbidden ever to interview a PC or talk to an auditor about a PC.  Only what can be statisticized is the concern of the D of P: total TA, process run, hours in session, etc.  If the auditor is trying to talk to the D of P about cases, he gets a job endangerment chit.  If a PC doesn’t gain in processing, there are reasons why.  But knowing little tricks won’t tell you what they are.  You can’t put beings together again with a cute little trick.

The auditor’s job is to audit standard processes on the PC, with a standard comm cycle, on a standard gradation program.  The D of P does standard D of P’ing.  He goes over the session and checks TA for the session. He picks up the next folder.  The PC’s goal is “Not to have too much trouble in this session.”  The total TA was 27 divs for a 2 1/2 hour session.  The PC is not in trouble -- continue the process.  Next folder: no goals or gains. PC restive; didn’t want to run any processes.  How many hours were wasted here?  All morning and all afternoon.  The PC was ARC broken through it all. Auditor to ethics and PC to review.

Handled in this way, cases keep winning.  If the PC rollercoasters, he goes to review, then to the examiner, then to ethics.  If the PC can’t spot the SP, ethics just keeps working it over.  There is someone who uses generalities that keep the PC from spotting him.  If you get the right one, the PTS’s face lights like a Christmas tree.  If you get the wrong one, it won’t, and it is like indicating the wrong BPC.  The condition doesn’t change.  That is the only time ethics lays an egg.  When the PTS situation is handled, the PC goes back to the HGC, and the auditor takes up from where he left off.  “Ethical standard matches case level.”  Ethics has as a purpose making people better, not punishing people.

Suppose the Org Exec Sec sees declining stats in the HGC -- processing is not as successful as before.  Now is the time to look at all the review chits.  He finds that auditing cycles are out on several auditors.  He tells the D of P.  The D of P sends these auditors for special training and gets their comm cycle in.  Lower classed auditors have lower ethical standards.

To be an excellent review auditor, you must be a crackerjack assesser, be able to make the E-meter sit up and sing, know the processes called for on the Green Form, be able to audit routine auditing on the grades, be able to CS any folder, know when to send a PC to review and when to review auditors, know when a process is flat, know what GI’s and BI’s can be read from a folder, know what process should be run next, know what is good TA and poor TA, and be a cryptographer, so you don’t get misunderstoods.  You should know which auditor to assign to which PC.  Your auditors are not all releases, and you know that there are quirks that make auditor A audit poorly with certain PCs. If you drop out one of those skills, you are that much less a complete auditor.

There is no review for power processing, so power processing is done in review, with two Class VII’s, CS’ing each other.

An auditor in training is not being trained as a one-man-band.  He gets tired and quits auditing, if he tries.  But he should be able to do the above actions, so that he understands what is happening when he audits.  

You only change the standard pattern of the session when the PC gets non-standard.  The PC goes to review when he is a flat ball-bearing.  The auditor should know how to do a Green Form, not because he is going to do one in standard session, but because, as the org grows, more review auditors will be needed.

The effects of out-tech are slower to appear in the HGC (maybe six months) than in the academy (a few days).

People are always fighting to own this planet.  That’s silly!  Why don’t they just go ahead and own it, as we are doing? 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1965
Remimeo
Review Hats
Qual Division

RELEASE, REHABILITATION OF
FORMER RELEASES AND
THETAN EXTERIORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

The exact tech follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIABILITY

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

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

TECH COMMENT

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

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF I JULY 1965
Issue II
Remimeo
Tech Hats	HCO Division
Qual Hats	Tech Div
Qual Div

COMM CYCLE ADDITIVES

There are no additives permitted on the Auditing Comm Cycle.

Example: 	Getting the pc to state the problem after the pc has said what the problem is.
Example: 	Asking a pc if that is the answer.
Example: 	Telling pc “it didn’t react” on the meter.
Example: 	Querying the answer.

This is the WORST kind of auditing.

Processes run best MUZZLED. By muzzled is meant using ONLY TR 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 by the text.

A pc’s results will go to HELL on an additive comm cycle.

There are a hundred thousand tricks that could be added to the Auditing Comm Cycle. EVERY ONE of them is a GOOF.

The ONLY time you ever ask for a repeat is when you couldn’t hear it.

Since 1950, I’ve known that all auditors talk too much in a session. The maximum talk is the standard model session and the TR 0 to 4 Auditing Comm Cycle ONLY.

It is a serious matter to get a pc to “clarify his answer”. It is in fact an Ethics matter and if done habitually is a Suppressive Act, for it will wipe out all gains.  There are mannerism additives also.

Example: 	Waiting for the pc to look at you before you give the next command. (Pcs who won’t look at you are ARC Broken. You don’t then twist this to mean the pc has to look at you before you give the next command.)

Example: 	A lifted eyebrow at an answer.
Example: 	A questioning sort of ack.

The Whole Message is

GOOD AUDITING OCCURS WHEN THE COMM CYCLE ALONE IS USED AND IS MUZZLED.

Additives on the Auditing Comm Cycle are ANY ACTION, STATEMENT, QUESTION OR EXPRESSION GIVEN IN ADDITION TO TRs 0-4.

They are Gross Auditing Errors.  And should be regarded as such.
Auditors who add to the Auditing Comm Cycle never make Releases.  So, that’s Suppressive.

Don’t do it!
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 3 JULY 1965
Remimeo
All Students
Saint Hill Courses	All Tech Activities
All Staff	All Levels

0 to VII

MODEL SESSION REVISED

It is important for reasons of preventing restimulation to cancel and discard all issues and forms of Model Session and use only the following, particularly for Releasing.

The auditor examines the room to make sure it is all right to audit in, adjusts the pc’s chair and checks his E-Meter for battery up and set, gives the pc the cans and states “THIS IS THE SESSION.” Tone 40.

(The following rudiments are used only in metered sessions.)

“What gains have you had from your last session?” (Omitted on a pc’s very first session but not from the first session of an intensive: written in the right-hand column at the top.)

“Is there an ARC Break?” (On raw meat, “Are you upset by anything?”)

“Is there any current problem that will interfere with auditing?”

“Should you have told me anything you didn’t?”

“Has anything been suppressed?”

“Has anything been denied?”

“Has anything been rushed?”

“This is the process: (states process).” (If a new process, clear the commands.)

Body of session

“I will give you two more commands of this process.”

“That was the body of the session.”

“Are there any comments on the session?”

“That’s It.”

This is the totality of Model Session used. To add words to the patter is to risk restimulation and it is expressly forbidden to do so.

RELEASE REACHED

It is VITAL when the proper phenomenon of a process occurs that the process be promptly concluded.

It is VITAL on lower level auditing if a needle floats and TA comes down to between 2 and 3 that the process and the session be unobtrusively ended with a soft “That’s It” and the preclear sent to the Qualifications Division to be declared a Release. It is a Gross Auditing Error to run one command more.

With this Model Session, Releases will be more stable and sessions run better.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1965

Remimeo 
Franchise
STATES OF BEING
ATTAINED BY PROCESSING

Types of Releases

The states of Release differ in that one is more stable than another.

The Reactive Mind (known also as the R6 Bank) can only be audited out by someone who is trained up to Class VI. When the Reactive Mind is fully audited out (erased completely) one has a Clear.

When a Clear has been refamiliarized with his capabilities you have an Operating Thetan (an OT).

A Release then is pulled OUT of his Reactive Mind.

A Clear has fully erased his Reactive Mind.

An Operating Thetan is one who is Cause over Matter Energy Space and Time and is not in a body.

The degree and relative permanence of being pulled out of the Reactive Mind determines the state of Release.

There are numerous things that can pull one back into the Reactive Mind.

These are (l) Locks (2) Secondaries (3) Engrams (4) The Whole Time Track.

Locks

By reducing locks as in Levels 0 to IV we then remove the ability of locks to pull the being back into his R6 Bank.

Locks are mental image pictures of non-painful but disturbing experiences the person has experienced. They depend for their force on secondaries and engrams.

Thus one who has had his locks reduced is a FIRST STAGE RELEASE.

Secondaries and Engrams

When a being has had the secondaries and engrams reduced he is far less likely to be pulled into the Reactive Mind than if he has just had their locks reduced.

Secondaries are mental image pictures containing misemotion (grief, anger, apathy, etc.). They contain no pain. They are moments of shock and stress and depend for their force on underlying engrams.

Engrams are mental image pictures of pain and unconsciousness the person has experienced.

When these are reduced one has a SECOND STAGE RELEASE.

The Whole Track

Bits and pieces of the whole track remain after the locks, secondaries and engrams are reduced. These bits inhibit the being from recovering knowledge.

The Whole Track is the moment to moment record of a person’s existence in this universe in picture and impression form.

When these bits are cleaned up, a being is a THIRD STAGE RELEASE.

Exterior

If a being is a 1st, 2nd or 3rd Stage Release and has also become exterior to his body in the process, we simply add “OT” to the state of Release. It is secondary in importance to the fact of being a Release. As soon as the being seeks to exert his “OT” powers he tends to restimulate his R6 bank and so goes back into his body.

This is all that is meant when a person is called a First Stage Released OT. The person has not only come out of his bank but also out of his body.

Processes

Many processes, all below Class V, make 1st Stage Releases. We have been making them for 15 years. When audited on low level grades after being released by them, the person goes into his secondaries and engrams. He can be fished back out again by modem technology and can easily regain the state of First Stage Release.

Power Processes alone can be run on a First Stage Release. These vanquish the secondaries and engrams. This requires very expert Class VII auditors as it is touchy work. These make a Second Stage Release.

In doing the earlier Power Processes the preclear often attains First Stage Release or First Stage Released OT. Only doing all the basic Power Processes (including one called Pr Pr 6) makes a Second Stage Release.

Certain Advanced Power Processes make a Third Stage Release. These mainly recover knowledge and smooth out one’s understanding of the awareness of the environment achieved by Second Stage Release on Power Processing.

Clear
The R6 Bank

When a being has been trained up to Class VI and has been given the materials of the basic Reactive Mind to audit out (they took years to find and are too complex to be tackled without training and the actual patterns), he can then attain the state of Clear.

The Reactive Mind is composed of significance and masses as old as the Universe itself and is the basic cause of the decline of the individual. Each person has his own basic bank but they are all exactly alike. The materials are quite useless and inhibiting.

A Clear is not under the great stress of this bank and so can be free. He uses his own basic purposes and is for the first time wholly himself.

Operating Thetan

This state of being is attained by drills and familiarity after the state of Clear has been obtained.

A real OT has no Reactive Bank, is cause over Matter, Energy, Space, Time and Thought and is completely free.

Summary

This HCOB contains a brief description of each of the States of Being one can recover by processing.

This is the first time they have ever been isolated and crisply defined.

These are all the states there are except for homo sapiens and animal and we know too much about those already.

								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 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

6507C27 SHSpec-65 Stages of Release

One of the interesting things about releases is that we have been making them for years and auditors have been going on by them, running more processes.  There were probably releases being made in 1951.  From 1957 on, when LRH made lots of keyed-out clears at an ACC (The 19th American ACC (6Jan-14Feb58): Tech Bulletins Vol. III, p. 204], auditors should have observed what was happening.  The longer they cleaned cleans, the more upset the PC became.  In exoneration, they didn’t realize that it is not OK to run a process beyond a floating needle.  This goes from ground zero to clear.  “Our main problem ... is overrun.”  If someone got an F/N on Self-Analysis, it would be a goof to run more recall-type processes.

The first level of the case is recognition of the environment.  So if you asked a person to look around and spot where he was, and the needle floated, you can’t run any CCH’s.  Or if you got an F/N on the first objective process, the rest of them are null and void.  If you go on, you are cleaning a clean. [This is the groundwork for Quickie Grades.]

Even on power, if the needle floats, even if the expected EP isn’t there, you end off.  Fortunately, you can run the rest of the power processes.  But when one process goes free, that’s it for that process.

“Our main problem ... is overrun.”  This has happened many times to LRH. LRH says he was overrun so much that he “must have been running other people’s banks.”  R6 is the exception to ending off when you get an F/N, because all other processes deal with key-out of the R6 bank, whereas R6 is total erasure.  This doesn’t apply to GPM’s.  When you get an F/N, you can’t contact them, and you are in trouble.  “R6 is the only process which is dealing with a total erasure.  All other[s deal] with locks on R6.  [The levels ultimately begin] with the reactive bank.  There’s just the guy [and] the possibility that he could get aberrated....  On top of that, the R6 bank is built, and then on top of [that] is built a tremendous accumulation that we know as “end words’, ... and on top of those is erected a whole series of whole track incidents and other types of GPM’s, known as “implants’.”  [See Fig. 28] The latter prevented permanent releases, by restimulating the original bank (the R6 bank).  Engrams are among and on top of implant GPMs.  Secondaries are on top of those, with locks on the top.  Engrams are restimulations of end-words.  End-words are restimulations of the R6 bank.  The whole trick in running R6EW is to get only end-words, not to pick up R6 material itself. Surrounding the lot is the physical universe, which could also be considered a sort of bank.  

What you are doing with a PC is carving away at this stack of stuff.  It contains significances and masses, spaces and energies.  It is also plotted against time.  But that is all there is in it.  The machinery and circuits in it are just combinations of energies and significances, and, as such, they are just a special case of the above.  This combination of energies and significances comprises a mass that sits there in its own made-up space, plotted against the PC’s experiential track, known as time.  There is nothing else in the bank, although the bank says there is.

Freud and psychoanalysis were popular because they had more R6 in their technologies than other systems.  They had some written end-words, on which they were basing everything.  By “transference”, Freud meant that the PC flipped into another valence.  The Freudians recognized recovery in terms of “release of affect”, by which they meant an emotional discharge, especially grief.  They didn’t recognize other emotions besides grief.  Nor did they recognize underlying engrams.  “All anyone has ever been trying to do when he was sincerely trying to help somebody with his mind, was reduce the effect of this thing called ‘the reactive mind’ [or the ‘subconscious mind’ or the ‘unconscious mind’] upon the individual himself.” There are many such psychotherapies on the whole track.  If anyone discovered scientology by himself, he probably freed himself and took off.  There is no trace of such an occurrence in the bank, however.  There are many instances on the track where people attacked the GPM’s of the R6 bank, chewed an item or two out, or crushed one, or some such.  They would take a picture of the area where someone had been and hit a big clapstick in front of the photograph, to make it look like it exploded.  They did this when the thetan was anaten or comatose.  The thetan would get the idea and take his own picture of his misemotional or painful experience, and smack it with a couple of beams and snap out of it.  That is what psychotherapy was in the Galactic Confederacy.

There were also suppressive technologies, which are easily mistaken for helpful technologies.  Implanters developed techniques to have effects on people.  There are many technologies calculated to have an effect on people. When a suppressive studies scientology, he does so from the viewpoint of trying to have an effect on someone.  The SP evaluates his action as an auditor by how much effect it had on the PC, not by whether it made the PC better.  The whole subject of alchemy was devoted to throwing the whole R6 level into restimulation -- throwing the guy into his R6 bank and letting the guy cook, thereafter.  The alchemists had no other goal.  Their books, writings and practices make it obvious.  It was the lead of human beings that they wanted to transmute into the gold of spirit.  Transmutation of metals had nothing to do with alchemy.  It was transmutation of life that they were talking about.

Their books are full of R6 dichotomies.  If you get one of the guys who has been into alchemy on power, and all that comes off is dichotomies.  He has been plowed into R6 since time immemorial.  You will have to find the practice that got him into it and fish him out.  Hypnotism is another practice that is only intended to make people more compliant, not to better them.  “You have to wake people up to make them better, not put them to sleep.”  You don’t want suggestibility.  You want self-determinism.  Some states, on the whole track, had a thought tower to pick up hostile thoughts and record them, so that the person indulging in “crimethink” would be turned in for brainwashing.  This is a swindle.  There never was such a thing.  A person was implanted with that idea and placed under a compulsion to report to the police if he had a bad thought.  There was another idea, on the whole track, for controlling thetans.  You would take a “piece of a thetan” and keep it in a lab.  If the thetan escaped, they would touch the piece of a thetan with hot rods.  This was also a swindle.

The rule still holds, that processing a PC who is determined to succumb won’t work, because there isn’t enough agreement in the session.  That is why you have an argument with hypnotists: your purpose is different from theirs. The common denominator of suppressive technologies is lies.  The common denominator of good technology is truth.  “The whole test of sincerity is, ‘Is the fellow doing what he says he’s doing?  Or is he doing something else?’ These two questions have to be answered about any government, movement, or individual:  ‘Is there a falsity on the line?’” All these downgrade subjects have a falsity on the line.  They say they are trying to make people well, but their statistics show what is really occurring.  

People “assume that the psychiatrist is there to help the person ... and he isn’t.  [It’s an apparency.  As mentioned above, the question is,] ‘With psychiatry in charge, is the world saner?’ No.  Their stats are ... not just down. [They are] runaway down....  Since psychiatry has entered the field of criminology, ... crime ... is fabulously on the increase....  There’s a falsity on the line.  What you understand he’s doing is not what he’s doing.” Psychiatric research is done by deep-sixing every scrap of data that doesn’t agree with the theory being pushed.  If you tried that in engineering, bridges and buildings would collapse.  But if some “scientist, is telling you, “Oh. Well, you have to be very learned to know about this,” you may swallow it, if you are not careful.  This is also true in the field of art.

As an auditor, you know that when the PC finds and articulates the problem, it blows.  Saying that it is something else won’t do it.  So you see that the basic crime in this universe isn’t making or destroying things.  It is altering truth.  “Any subject has a few alter-ises in it.  Otherwise it would just disappear.”  But how many alter-ises does it have?  That is the question.  If it has many, it will harm, instead of helping people.  It will prove to be striving to create effects on people.  Subjects with a lot of alter-is are harmful, and subjects with relatively little alter-is are helpful.  Evil practices are identified by the falsity that is connected with them.

“The worse off a PC is, the more he thinks he’s got in his mind.”  He gets on an additive line.  “He collects and accumulates therapies ... like a pack rat.”  The medical student who “gets” every disease he reads about is “on an additive line, and in the direction of ‘additive’, ... we actually approach evil.  On the direction of subtraction, we approach good.”  Therefore scientology is based on truth.  “The isness, not the alter-isness, is what we care about.”  It is “What is in the mind?”, not, “Why is it in the mind?”

“Cleaning a clean brings about the manifestations of evil, [because, since] there’s not anything there to be cleaned,” the PC has to put something there.  You are therefore adding.  It is adding, because there is nothing, there to be cleaned.  Therefore, the PC and the auditor have to put something there, before anything will happen.  There are only five or six kinds of things in the mind.  When you are out of one of them, you have to put something there to run it out.  There is a reactive mind, with certain elements.  When you have disconnected the PC from that class of element, he has ceased to be an effect of it, and you can regard it as gone.  The R6 GPM’s won’t disappear by someone changing his mind or postulates, because the R6 bank is a tangle of boobytrapped postulates.  There wouldn’t be anything else in the mind if the R6 bank weren’t there.  There would be no thing or isness.

A PC gets a full, “no blanks” time track, with solid locks, because it all relates somehow to some secondary or engram somewhere on the track.  You start with the R6 bank.  Then, on top of it, you get a wogginess and wooziness on the subject of postulates.  He accumulates R6EW locks.  Then his own goals, as locks, get stacked up on this.  And implants are overlaid on top of this. Then you get whole track engrams, then secondaries, then locks.  Eventually, with time, when the thetan finally became human, everything was a lock on something earlier in the bank, and he made a picture of it.  “Yesterday runs like an engram.”  “He couldn’t look at anything in the universe, right now, without it hanging up on some experience he’s had that he didn’t like.... There’s the bank.”  So the thetan gets a full time track.  

The thetan is also surrounded by the physical universe, which gives him problems.  Additionally, there are other people’s universes, which are different, experientially.  This can also give him a PTP that doesn’t have anything to do with a mental image picture ... or reactive bank, but it can restimulate the reactive bank and [thus] be harder to solve.”  A PTP can exist as such, independent of the bank.  If you get your hand caught in a clothes wringer, it is a PTP.  It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the bank.  The fact that a thetan’s attention is stuck on a PTP keeps him from putting his attention on anything else, so he makes no gain.  You can usually handle the problem on the basis that it is a problem because he doesn’t think he can handle it.  He has entered a lie into it, so he doesn’t try to do anything about it, so it continues to be a problem.  The lie in a problem is:

1.  That it exists and is a problem.    or 2.  That one can do nothing about it to handle it.  

If the auditor could get the PC to confront the problem, to take it apart and get its elements and take the lies out of the problem, the PC could probably confront it, and it would cease to be a problem.  However, the problem isn’t necessarily entirely in the PC’s mind every time.

An ARC break is a situation where the PC feels under some sort of attack from an unknown source.  In its inception, an ARC break is actually an incomplete cycle of action.  In all likelihood, there is some big lie entered into it.  But the main upset is that the PC couldn’t complete what he was doing.  A PC isn’t auditable when he is in an ARC break, because he can’t put his attention on anything else.

It is presence of time that makes a PTP.

As human beings, all of us have, to some degree, an under-the-gun existence.  “The amount of duress that a person is under is proportionate to the degree that he thinks it threatens his survival.” You can tolerate quite a bit of it, unless you are on the skids already.  When the PC is upset, the auditor can’t get away with making mistakes.  When the PC is feeling good, he can get away with some.

If you have managed to get the PC disconnected from his ARC breaks, PTP’s, etc. and then go on auditing him on them, you are invalidating his ability to confront.  You are giving him the idea that he ought to be bothered by them.  When you see the F/N, don’t give two more commands.  Don’t get him to itsa some more.  Send him to the examiner.  Let the PC have his win.  One more command and you are cleaning a clean.  He is out of that out-rud.  The connectors to the bank are gone in that area.  In trying to find an overrun after the fact, “you’re looking in the ‘gone-ness’ for the ‘what went-ness’ ...  and you’re looking through a mass of, ‘It wasn’t there anyway-ness’, afterwards.”

A release isn’t just disconnected from the bank.  He has erased a stratum of it.

In rehabbing, you are getting rid of additives.

Third stage release [Grade Va] leads the PC through the physical environment contact with the bank and ends up cutting off the R6EW top.  Just going off the top of those floating end-words, you can get the PC off of what pins him into those end-words.  You can just separate that.  Each of the Grade V and Va processes is run to F/N.  There are four processes on Va, one having to do with people, one with where the PC has been, etc.  Power processing is very close to the truth.  Therefore it must be run very standardly.  

After running Va, there is nothing between the PC and the [R6] bank itself.  Now, of course, he can dive off the shade of this, and he has no protective coating between him and the R6 bank.  It stands there, naked and raw.  He’s got the R6EW spans that are lying in and amongst the GPM’s, etc. He can run those like a shot.  R6EW can run to F/N.  There is actually a Fourth Stage Release on R6EW.  Running GPM’s, one can go to F/N, thus getting a “Fifth Stage Release” by running GPM’s.  But these aren’t important.  The state of clear is what is important.  You don’t want to go free of the body and leave some of the bank around to key in later.

In rehabbing, you get the liability that you may find yourself working on the next stage up, and the rehab process is not calculated to handle the next stage. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JULY 1965

Replaces HCO Bulletin of 22 May 1965 which
replaced HCO Bulletin of 23 April 1964.
Remimeo	 HCO Bulletin of 23 April 1964 was written by
Sthil Students	 Roger Biddell and is corrected by this Bulletin.

SCIENTOLOGY III

AUDITING BY LISTS

The earlier genus of this process was Sec Checking on the Joburg. With no reference to these, I recently developed for Level III a process called Auditing by Lists. Any list can be used.

As a preview to the process I asked staff member Roger Biddell to use List One. The questions were generalized. Instead of “Have I       ?”, “Has there been ____?” was used. Otherwise the question remained the same as given in the HCO Bulletin for L. 1. He ran the process for some hours on a preclear with excellent results and summarized my verbal and written instructions as applied.

AUDITING BY LISTS
L.1.

Use meter at sensitivity 16.

Use ARC Break assessment List 1. The questions asked are generalized and without time limiters.

i.e. 	Has a withhold been missed?

	Have you been given a wrong goal? etc.

Begin with List 1. Ask the first line of this List while watching the meter for an instant read.

If the line does not read, say, “That’s clean” and move on to the next line of the List and do the same action with this new line.

If the pc has something to say about a line that is clean, let him say it, acknowledge it and then you ask the next line. Don’t Q and A.

If the line when asked has an instant read say, “That reads” then, “What do you consider this could be?” or, “What considerations do you have about this?”

Let the pc answer all he wants to. While he is giving his considerations, mark down any blowdowns of the TA.

When the pc has given all his considerations say, “Thank you. I’ll check the line on the meter” and call the line again. If it instant reads say, “There’s another read here” then again ask for considerations, etc.

Continue these actions until the line goes clean.
When clean say, “That’s clean.”

Then move on to the next line.

When List 1 is completed, and then List 1, then List 1 and so on.

If running correctly, the TA total should increase from session to session. The pc should get more and more blowdowns on his considerations. Then he should get blowdowns on what he considers the main thing is.

Don’t Q and A. Don’t take up or do anything with the pc’s considerations. Don’t ever say, “That still reads.” It’s always “Another read” as “It still reads” makes the pc feel he has not answered the question.

This process gets charge off the case.

If pc still wonders what the main charge on a line was, tell him according to what gave the most TA action.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 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 3 AUGUST 1965
Remimeo 
All Students 
All Staff
AUDITING GOOFS
BLOWDOWN INTERRUPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN AUDITOR MUST NOT SPEAK OR MOVE DURING A BLOWDOWN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                       					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 5 AUGUST 1965
Remimeo	
BPI
Certs & Awards
Issue to all new
Releases
RELEASE STAGES

Once a pc has begun to come out of his bank, he either continues to come out or goes back in a bit.

He (or she) does not remain in status quo (unchanging state) while a Release.

A First Stage Release often pulls further out to First Stage Released OT after processing.

Similarly a Second Stage Release may become a Second Stage Released OT.

In their understandable enthusiasm—they feel so much better and bigger and stronger—a release sometimes seeks additional acknowledgment by requesting a further release check.

A pc who has attained a First Stage can go First Stage Released OT but cannot possibly go Second Stage without Power Processing. In short, one can’t upgrade Stages 1 to 2, etc, without the actual processing.

Why? Because a key out is just that, a key out. Just because one no longer has a tiger in his lap does not mean the tiger has vanished. He’s merely stepped out into the hall. In the course of life somebody is going to leave the door open. The tiger won’t come back into one’s lap but he’ll sure sit on the rug and sneer. Key out means there’s still a tiger. Release means he’s away. One First Stage can be more released than another First Stage. The tiger is further off.

But when you start upgrading numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) you are talking about less tiger.

There’s less bank.

First Stage removes a few tiger whiskers and the sneer. That’s the locks going. The tiger is near or far—that means more or less 1st Stage, it doesn’t mean there’s less tiger.

Second Stage removes the tiger’s misemotion and his front claws. The tiger can now be near or far but he is that much tiger. He can be so far away one is sure he has vanished. But he’s just far. He remains that much tiger (minus whiskers, sneer, temper and front claws), he just isn’t evident.

Third Stage pulls the tiger’s ability to paralyze one’s wits. In effect Third Stage removes impediments to one’s ability to know. The tiger, though now minus whiskers, sneer, temper, front claws, and the ability to paralyze, is still about. He may at this stage walk off so far that one is positive there is no more tiger. But it’s early to break out the champagne. Maybe he won’t be back for years, even centuries, but he still exists.

Fourth Stage Release removes the tiger’s claws all about and blunts his teeth. And causes him to hide in closets. But though he hasn’t whiskers, sneer, claws, or his frightening effect, or the old sharpness, he is still a tiger. One can gambol about in the sun cheerily, feeling quite sure there is no tiger at all. Only the locks on the R6 bank are gone. That R6 bank is still there.
At this stage the pc feels he can move mountains single-handed and is given to chest thumping. That he still depends upon a body gets overlooked.

But ahead of him is the BIG job. There is still a tiger. This tiger if not vanished utterly will sooner or later creep up and eat up the goodies.

So one has to handle Mr. Tiger once and for all, run the total R6 bank and become a 5th Stage Release.

Now, and only now, with a bit of reorientation can one be CLEAR. No more tiger. He is not near or far. He doesn’t exist. And one can go on for the trillions.

Early on my pcs went keyed out clear and went away. They stayed that way a long time.

They were sure they had attained the zenith.

Today we are going to have the same problem.

A Release is going to feel sure he has gone up in number of Release when it’s only the tiger out for lunch.

I am the last one to throw cool water over anyone’s head about Release. But I have a passion for stating truth as I know it when I know it. You can always depend on that. It’s not always popular but it’s honest.

Therefore these are the only ways to go up in number as a Release.

To obtain FIRST STAGE RELEASE, one must have had lower grade auditing of some sort. This removes the locks (the distressful moments of life) off the Reactive Mind. As these pinned one to it, one can now get out of it.

To obtain SECOND STAGE RELEASE one must have been run on the highest of the Power Processes. This gets rid of the secondaries (misemotions and upsets) and the engrams (moments of pain and unconsciousness). And as these pinned one to the Reactive Mind one can now move out of it and isn’t so likely to go back into it as he has no secondaries and engrams to call him back.

To obtain THIRD STAGE RELEASE one has to tackle the beings, places and subjects one has long detested. And when these are gone one isn’t likely to be called back into the Reactive Mind very soon as bits of his daily life don’t remind him of beings, places and subjects he once detested.

To obtain FOURTH STAGE RELEASE one has to take the lock end words off the R6 bank. He has to be an R6 Auditor himself to do this properly. With these gone, the R6 bank is left on its naked basics and one can be very free of it for quite a while.

But now we are down to the concrete and bedrock.

To obtain a FIFTH STAGE RELEASE, one has to have run out the whole remaining Reactive Mind. We are awfully lucky to have the combination to the vault as it’s been shut thoroughly for the trillions. That’s done by a process known as R6-GPMI-or GPMs by Items. And I assure you

1. 	It can be done and

2. 	It was pure hell going it blind when I was trying to find it. It took several years and thousands of hours of research auditing to just find the pattern of it. This is the longest job (R6-GPMI) and requires now at least 14 months of daily solo auditing. And then one is 5th Stage and ready for a polish and Clear.

Now understand, at each of these stages one has to go unrelease to make it to the next stage of release. This requires guts—and faith. One is feeling GRAND. The world is  beautiful. The unbrave get nervous at the thought of diving back into the asphalt or, to keep our metaphor, about deliberately whistling up the Tiger—”Here Tiger! Here Tiger! Come out wherever you are!” So a way that is cooked up to avoid this further combat is to pretend an upgrade in number of release without the hard work and scratches necessary to honestly achieve it.

Add to all this that one has a present time, and a body to receive the slings and arrows and one sees that it is a complex picture.

But we have the way. It is the way.

Many will come along selling the frightened the idea one can leap up through the numbers without pain or toil or auditing by flexing one’s chest or eating Wheaties or praying. But that isn’t the WAY. There’s no bridge there.

The main point that will be stumbled on is this: Nobody has any real reality on how high up these states are or how utterly tall Clear really is.

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

Well, that’s the score. Does it help?

                                        					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 30 AUGUST 1965
Remimeo

RELEASE STAGES

There are five stages of Release. When one of these is attained the next one up can be run.

A preclear who has attained a stage of Release may not be run further on the processes of that stage or below or he will go back into his Reactive Mind.

All Releases however can have their problems handled, their withholds pulled, their ARC Breaks repaired and any Release at any stage can be audited on the exact processes of Release Rehabilitation.

The states of Release differ in that one is more stable than another.

The Reactive Mind (known also as the R6 Bank) can only be audited out by someone who is trained up to Class Vl. When the Reactive Mind is fully audited out (erased completely), one has a Clear.

When a Clear has been refamiliarized with his capabilities, you have an Operating Thetan (an OT).

A Release, then, is pulled OUT of his Reactive Mind.

A Clear has fully erased his Reactive Mind.

An Operating Thetan is one who is Cause over Matter, Energy, Space and Time and is not in a body.

The degree and relative permanence of being pulled out of the Reactive Mind determines the state of Release.

There are numerous things that can pull one back into the Reactive Mind.

These are ( I ) Locks (2) Secondaries (3) Engrams (4) The Whole Time Track.

LOCKS

By reducing locks as in Levels 0 to IV, we then remove the ability of locks to pull the being back into his R6 Bank.

Locks are mental image pictures of non-painful, but disturbing, experiences the person has experienced. They depend for their force on secondaries and engrams.

Thus, one who has had his locks reduced is a FIRST STAGE RELEASE.

SECONDARIES and ENGRAMS

When a being has had the secondaries and engrams reduced, he is far less likely to be pulled into the Reactive Mind than if he has just had their locks reduced.
Secondaries are mental image pictures containing misemotion (grief, anger, apathy, etc). They contain no pain. They are moments of shock and stress and depend for their force on underlying engrams.

Engrams are mental image pictures of pain and unconsciousness the person has experienced.

When these are reduced, one has a SECOND STAGE RELEASE.

THE WHOLE TRACK

Bits and pieces of the whole track remain after the locks, secondaries and engrams are reduced. These bits inhibit the being from recovering knowledge.

The Whole Track is the moment to moment record of a person’s existence in this universe in picture and impression form.

When these bits are cleaned up, a being is a THIRD STAGE RELEASE.

THE REACTIVE MIND

When the pc has taken the locks off the Reactive Mind itself, using R6EW, he attains Fourth Stage Release.

THE REACTIVE MIND

When the entire Reactive Mind has been erased and the person is again wholly himself, one could call it a Fifth Stage Release.

But that is really CLEAR.

OPERATING THETAN

When a being once more has recovered his full abilities and freedom, a state much higher than Man ever before envisioned is attained. This state is called OPERATING
THETAN.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

The Aims of Scientology
by
L. Ron Hubbard

A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.

First announced to an enturbulated world fifteen years ago, these aims are well within the grasp of our technology.

Non-political in nature, Scientology welcomes any individual of any creed, race or nation.

We seek no revolution. We seek only evolution to higher states of being for the individual and for Society.

We are achieving our aims.

After endless millenia of ignorance about himself, his mind and the Universe, a breakthrough has been made for Man.

Other efforts Man has made have been surpassed.

The combined truths of Fifty Thousand years of thinking men, distilled and amplified by new discoveries about Man, have made for this success.

We welcome you to Scientology. We only expect of you your help in achieving our aims and helping others. We expect you to be helped.

Scientology is the most vital movement on Earth today.

In a turbulent world, the job is not easy. But then, if it were, we wouldn’t have to be doing it.

We respect Man and believe he is worthy of help. We respect you and believe you, too, can help.

Scientology does not owe its help. We have done nothing to cause us to propitiate. Had we done so, we would not now be bright enough to do what we are doing.

Man suspects all offers of help. He has often been betrayed, his confidence shattered. Too frequently he has given his trust and been betrayed. We may err, for we build a world with broken straws. But we will never betray your faith in us so long as you are one of us.

The sun never sets on Scientology.

And may a new day dawn for you, for those you love and for Man.

Our aims are simple, if great.

And we will succeed, and are succeeding at each new revolution of the Earth.

Your help is acceptable to us.

Our help is yours.

                                        					L. Ron Hubbard
                                        					Saint Hill
                                        					September, 1965

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 SEPTEMBER 1965
Remimeo	
Vital Data for
Tech Secs
Ds of P
HGC Training Officers	OUT TECH
Ds of T	
Course Supervisors	AND HOW TO GET IT IN
All Students

The term “OUT TECH” means that Scientology is not being applied or is not being correctly applied. When Tech is IN we mean that Scientology is being applied and is being correctly applied. By TECH is meant technology, referring of course to the application of the precise scientific drills and processes of Scientology. Technology means the methods of application of an art or science as opposed to mere knowledge of the science or art itself. One could know all about the theory of motor cars and the science of building them and the art of designing them and still not be able to build, plan or drive one. The practices of building, planning or driving a motor car are quite distinct from the theory, science and art of motor cars.

An auditor is not just a Scientologist. He or she is one who can apply it. Thus the technology of Scientology is its actual application to oneself, a preclear or the situations one encounters in life.

Tech implies USE. There is a wide gap between mere knowledge and the application of that knowledge.

When we say tech is out, we might also say, “While that unit or person may know all about Scientology, that person does not actually apply it.”

A skilled auditor knows not only Scientology but how to apply the technology to self, pcs and life.

Many persons auditing have not yet crossed over from “knowing about” to “applying”. Thus you see them fooling about with pcs. When a skilled auditor sees a critical pc he knows BANG—pc has a withhold and pulls it. That’s because this auditor’s tech is in. Meaning he knows what to do with his data.

Some other person who knows a lot of Scientology, has had courses and all that, yet sees a critical pc and then tries to add up everything he knows about pcs and stumbles about and then decides on a Zero pc it’s a new thing that’s wrong that’s never been seen before.

What’s the difference here? It’s the difference between a person who knows but cannot apply and a skilled technician who can apply the knowledge.

Most golfers know that you have to keep your eye on the ball just before, during and after you hit it. That’s the basic datum of powerful, long drives down the fairway. So if this is so well known then why do so few golfers do it? They have arrived at a point of knowing they must. They have not yet arrived at a point of being able to. Then their heads get so scrambled, seeing all their bad drives which didn’t go down the fairway, that they buy rabbits feet or new clubs or study ballistics. In short, not being able to do it, they disperse and do something else.

All auditors go through this. All of them, once trained, know the right processes. Then they have to graduate up to doing the right processes.

Observation plays an enormous role in this. The auditor is so all thumbs with his meter and unfamiliar tools he has no time or attention to see what goes on with the pc. So for 15 years lots of auditors made releases without ever noticing it. They were so involved in knowing and so unskilled in applying, they never saw the ball go down the fairway for a 200 yard drive!

So they began to do something else and squirrel. There was the pc going release, but the auditor, unskilled as a technician for all his knowledge of the science, never saw the auditing work even though even the auditing done that badly did work.

Do you get the point?

You have to know your tools very very well to see past them! An auditor who squirrels, who fools about with a pc, who fumbles around and seldom gets results just isn’t sufficiently familiar with a session, its patter, his meter and the mind to see past them to the pc.

Drill overcomes this. The keynote of the skilled technician is that he is a product of practice. He has to know what he is trying to do and what elements he is handling. Then he can produce a result.

I’ll give you an example: I told an auditor to look over a past session of known date on a pc and find what was missed in that session. Something must have been missed as the pc’s tone arm action collapsed in that session and ever afterwards was nil. So this auditor looked for a “missed withhold from the auditor in that session”. The ordered repair was a complete dud. Why? This auditor did not know that anything could be missed except a withhold of the hidden overt type. He didn’t know there could be an inadvertent withhold wherein the pc thinks he is withholding because the auditor didn’t hear or acknowledge. This auditor didn’t know that an item on a list could be missed and tie up TA. But if he did know these things he didn’t know them well enough to do them. A second more skilled auditor took over and bang! the missed item on the list was quickly found. The more skilled auditor simply asked, “In that session what was missed?” and promptly got it. The former auditor had taken a simple order, “Find what was missed in that session,” and turned it into something else: “What withhold was missed in that session?” His skill did not include applying a simple direct order as auditing looked very complex to him as he had so much trouble with doing it.

You can train somebody in all the data and not have an auditor. A real auditor has to be able to apply the data to the pc.

Importances play a huge part in this. I had a newly graduated darkroom photographic technician at work. It was pathetic to see the inability to apply important data. The virtues of ancient equipment and strange tricks to get seldom required effects were all at his fingertips. But he did not know that you wiped developer off your hands before loading fresh film. Consequently he ruined every picture taken with any film he loaded. He did not know you washed chemicals out of bottles before you put different chemicals in them. Yet he could quote by the yard formulas not in use for 50 years! He knew photography. He could not apply what he knew. Soon he was straying all over the place trying to find new developers and papers and new methods. Whereas all he had to do was learn how to wash his hands and dry them before handling new film.

I also recall a 90-day wonder in World War II who came aboard in fresh new gold braid and with popped eyes stared at the wheel and compass. He said he’d studied all about them but had never seen any before and had often wondered if they really were used. How he imagined ships were steered and guided beyond the sight of land is a mystery. Maybe he thought it was all done by telepathy or an order from the Bureau of Navigation!

Alter-is and poor results do not really come from not-know. They come from can’t-apply.

Drills, drills, drills and the continual repetition of the important data handle this condition of can’t-apply. If you drill auditors hard and repeat often enough basic auditing facts, they eventually disentangle themselves and begin to do a job of application.

IMPORTANT DATA

The truly important data in an auditing session are so few that one could easily memorize them in a few minutes.

From case supervisor or auditor viewpoint:

1. 	If an auditor isn’t getting results either he or the pc is doing something else.

2. 	There is no substitute for knowing how to run and read a meter perfectly.

3. 	An auditor must be able to read, comprehend and apply HCO Bs and instructions.
	
4. 	An auditor must be familiar enough with what he’s doing and the mechanics of the mind to be able to observe what is happening with the pc.

5. 	There is no substitute for perfect TRs.

6. 	An auditor must be able to duplicate the auditing command and observe what is happening and continue or end processes according to their results on the pc.

7. 	An auditor must be able to see when he’s released the pc and end off quickly and easily with no shock or overrun.

8. 	An auditor must have observed results of his standard auditing and have confidence in it.

CASE REACTION

The auditor and the Case Supervisor must know the only six reasons a case does not advance. They are:

1. 	Pc is Suppressive.

2. 	Pc is ALWAYS a Potential Trouble Source if he Roller Coasters and only finding the RIGHT suppressive will clean it up. No other action will. There are no other reasons for a Roller Coaster (loss of gain obtained in auditing).

3. 	One must never audit an ARC Broken pc for a minute even but must locate and indicate the by-passed charge at once. To do otherwise will injure the pc’s case.

4. 	A present time problem of long duration prevents good gain and sends the pc into the back track.

5. 	The only reasons a pc is critical are a withhold or a misunderstood word and there is NO reason other than those. And in trying to locate a withhold it is not a motivator done to the pc but something the pc has done.

6. 	Continuing overts hidden from view are the cause of no case gain (see number 1, Suppressive).

The only other possible reason a pc does not gain on standard processing is the pc or the auditor failed to appear for the session.
Now honestly, aren’t those easy?

But a trainee fumbling about with meter and what he learned in a bog of unfamiliarity will always tell you it is something else than the above. Such pull motivators, audit ARC Broken pcs who won’t even look at them, think Roller Coaster is caused by eating the wrong cereal and remedy it all with some new wonderful action that collapses the lot.

ASSESSMENT

You could meter assess the first group 1 to 8 on an auditor and the right one would fall and you could fix it up.

You could meter assess the second group 1 to 6 on a pc and get the right answer every time that would remedy the case.

You have a list in the HCO Pol Ltr Form of 26 June 1965 done for Review. That covers the whole of any errors that can be made on a pc scouting both the auditor’s application and the pc’s reaction to the auditing.

When I tell you these are the answers, I mean it. I don’t use anything else. And I catch my sinning auditor or bogged down pc every time.

To give you an idea of the simplicity of it, a pc says she is “tired” and therefore has a somatic. Well, that can’t be it because it’s still there. So I ask for a problem and after a few given the pc hasn’t changed so it’s not a problem. I ask for an ARC Break and bang! I find one. Knowing the principles of the mind, and as I observe-pcs, I see it’s better but not gone and ask for a previous one like it. Bang! That’s the one and it blows completely. I know that if the pc says it’s A and it doesn’t blow, it must be something else. I know that it’s one of six things. I assess by starting down the list. I know when I’ve got it by looking at the pc’s reactions (or the meter’s). And I handle it accordingly.

Also, quite vitally, I know it’s a limited number of things. And even more vitally I know by long experience as a technician that I can handle it fully and proceed to do so.

There is no “magic” touch in auditing like the psychiatrist believes. There is only skilled touch, using known data and applying it.

Until you have an auditor familiar with his tools, cases and results you don’t have an auditor. You have a collected confusion of hope and despair rampant amongst non-stable data.

Study, drill and familiarity overcome these things. A skilled technician knows what gets results and gets them.

So drill them. Drill into them the above data until they chant them in their sleep. And finally comes the dawn. They observe the pc before them, they apply standard tech. And wonderful to behold there are the results of Scientology, complete. Tech is IN.

								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 22 SEPTEMBER 1965

Remimeo 
All Scientology
URGENT URGENT URGENT

RELEASE GRADATION
NEW LEVELS OF RELEASE

Further research has revealed additional data concerning Releases which makes it necessary to re-name the types of Release, or else deny preclears all the benefits available from states of Release.

As mentioned in earlier lectures there are several intermediate stages of Release between Level Zero and Level Five. I have finally isolated these and they agree with the Gradation Chart of Levels.

This changes also in some degree the upper levels of Academy training materials without actually adding any but only reassigning the same materials to different levels.

This discovery came out of a survey of the only things that could balk a case. These also are the main things an auditor has to be careful about in pcs. Further study revealed the state of Release to be available on each of these points and therefore, both to make Releases and better trained auditors, these were fitted in to the Gradation Chart in natural sequence as the dominant points stressed on each level.

The points are the same as those covered in the current “Out Tech” Bulletins and lecture.

They are:

      	Communication
      	ARC Breaks
      	PTPs
      	O/Ws
      	Continuous Overts

So as to minimize any upset in introducing these additional levels of Release we will cease to call Release by stages and call them by Grades. In earlier material and lectures the terms “1st Stage Release” indicated a person released anywhere between Level Zero and Level IV, a “Second Stage Release” indicated a Power Process Release, a “Third Stage Release” was one made by orientation processes and a “Fourth Stage Release” meant one made by R6 EW. This was before I found that the additional levels were important or obtainable. Without wiping out the meaning of these “stages”, we will simply cease to use them to designate Releases and designate by GRADES. We will then use the exact processes of the grades that obtain the state of Release for the preclear and thus keep things straight.

This then is the new Grading:

	Type of Release	Type of Process

Grade VII 	— 	CLEAR

Grade VI Release 	— 	R6 EW

Grade V Release 	— 	Power Processes

Grade IV Release 	— 	Service Facsimiles

Grade III Release 	— 	ARC Break Processes (old R-4-H renamed R-3-H)

Grade II Release 	— 	O/W Processes (including the “Joburg”)

Grade I Release 	— 	Problems Processes (such as Probs Intensive or CCHs)

Grade 0 Release 	— 	Communication Processes

Any one of the above group of processes can (and should be) run to a Floating Needle (and not one command beyond it).

With auditors warned of the consequences of running beyond the state of Release and people easily rehabilitated to the state even if it is overrun, it will be found that the state is attainable at each level with smooth auditing.

This ties smoothly into training as a class of auditor is capable of making a class of Release.

Knowing why people Roller Coaster (Potential Trouble Source) and what an SP (Suppressive Person) is and by carefully handling training of auditors in accordance with the “Out Tech” materials we can easily attain these states for preclears.

The discovery is actually contained in the first material issued that calls attention to not further auditing Releases. They could have their ARC Breaks, PTPs and Overts handled. This when I followed it up showed that additional Release states existed for these types of phenomena.

There are some additional processes that can be run at certain levels and as these are proven out they will be added as alternate processes to the level. However, it will be found that when a preclear goes Release at a Grade, it will not be advisable to further audit him or her in that grade on an additional process once the phenomena of Release has been attained for that grade. It may be that if a pc fails to go Release on the recommended process for that grade, another process for that grade included under the type of process for that grade may be used. For instance, on Problems, the pc does not go Grade I Release in the regular buttons of a Problems Intensive. Other buttons may be found and used. Or the preclear may be run on “Rising Scale Processes” or another process listed for that grade, all toward the goal of making the pc a Release from Problems. You don’t run a pc on the next grade just because you couldn’t Release him on the lower grade. You run the additional processes of a grade until he releases at that grade.

At Grade Zero you run Comm Processes of whatever kind until you have a Grade O Release. That means a “Communication Release”. Then you do the same at Grade I and run any version of problems, that affects the person’s problems until you have a Grade I Release, a “Problems Release”.

Therefore you are releasing the person on certain subjects at each grade. The scale can then be written like this.

Grade VII CLEAR	— 	Bank Erased

Grade VI Release 	— 	Whole Track Release

Grade V Release 	— 	Power Release

Grade IV Release 	— 	Habit Release

Grade III Release 	— 	ARC Release

Grade II Release 	— 	Overt Release

Grade I Release 	— 	Problems Release

Grade 0 Release 	— 	Communication Release

You can readily spot that under each of these headings we have several effective processes in addition to a principal process.

The most indicated processes for these levels are listed in the first list of grades above.

If a former Release went Release on, let us say, Problems, he can be rehabilitated on the Problems Release and then audited on any of the other Grades from IV down. In short, anyone who went Release on one of these Grades from IV down may not be audited further on that Grade but can be released on any one of the other Grades 0 to IV omitting only Grade I Release, Problems.

Of course from V (Power Processes) on up it becomes improbable to run a lower grade but it possibly could be done on some cases. However, a Grade VI Release (R6 EW) can’t possibly be run below Grade VI. And on a Clear, there’s no bank at all, only freedom.

It’s also noteworthy that it’s all but impossible to do Grade V, Power Processes, on a former Release that has not been fully rehabilitated on the lower grade.

In training it is therefore necessary to put a Meter in the hands of a student at Zero and have him able to clean Tone Arm action well at Level I, be able to detect and clean reads at II and not clean cleans, be able to assess at III and find Service Facs at IV.

This means also that at Zero you teach the student all about Communication, its formula and the Comm Cycle and TRs. At I you teach repetitive commands, Problems Intensives (assessed by an upper class auditor as we used to do) and the CCHs (which pull the person out of problems and into PT). At II you teach a student all about STUDY (the genus of overts is the misunderstood) and O/Ws. At III you teach the student all about ARC and ARC Breaks and assessment and how to do old R-4-H in full and expertly. And at IV you teach the student all about “Deds” and “Dedexes” (History of Man) and justified O/Ws and Suppressives and PTSs and how to find and run Service Facs. And at V you review the student and classify fully all lower grades. And at VI you teach the student all about R6 and how to do R6 EW and as the student moves to VII you teach Power Processing and give the student the final materials to go on to Clear himself.

As I promised to do some time ago, that neats up all training into a form that can be firm, finally published in eventual book form, and which puts the stress on the most important data in auditing.

Parts of the mind, Codes, scales, other background data can be woven into the proper levels without overloading any.

Obviously then, you teach the student the theory in the Certification course and the drills and key processes for the grade in the Classification course of the proper level.

This neats up both training and processing, releasing and clearing.

This does not prohibit one from handling ARC Breaks or PTPs or overts in rudiments at any level, really. Handling a rudiment is just getting the pc going. It puts the heavy processes that handle ARC Breaks in life and the past, the problems, etc each in its proper level.

The rule applies that you must not overrun one of these heavy grade processes and must halt it the moment a free needle appears on it. Or if the TA goes out of it and it hasn’t released the pc and hasn’t been overrun another process can be run for that grade to handle the subject of that grade.

But I think you will find that the primary process of the grade will do it uniformly if well audited.

Here then is the additional data that belongs on your Gradation Chart and modernizes it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

L RH:ml.rd 
Copyright © 1965 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1965
Remimeo
All Scientology
Staff
All Students		
RELEASE GRADATION
ADDITIONAL DATA
(Supplements HCOB 22 Sept 65)

The Grades of Release as covered in HCOB 22 Sept 65 have been named and will be found, with auditor classes, in the ROUTING CHART of 26 Sept 65 being issued with “Auditor 10” in October 65.

These Grades and names are final, and they designate what is to be run on the pc to obtain the various states of Release.

A table follows:

Grade	Name	Materials	Former Name	Where Done

Grade VIII	Operating Thetan	R1 Drills	Operating Thetan	Saint Hill

Grade VII	CLEAR	Clearing Course	Clear	Saint Hill
				Solo

Grade VI	Whole Track	R6 EW	Stage 4 Release	Saint Hill
Release	Release			Solo

Grade VA	Power Plus	Added Power	Stage 3 Release	Saint Hill by
Release	Release	Process		Class VII
				Auditor

Grade V	Power Release	Power Processes	2nd Stage	Saint Hill by
Release			Release	Class VIIs

Grade IV	Ability Release	Service	None	Saint Hill or
Release		Facsimiles		HGCs—Any
				Class IV or
				above

Grade III	Freedom Release	R3H	None	SH or HGCs—
Release		ARC Breaks		Any Class III
				or above

Grade II	Relief Release	O/W Processes	None	SH or HGCs—
Release		Missed w/hs		Any Class II
		Joburg		or above

Grade I	Problems Release	Probs Intensive	None	SH or HGCs—
Release		Any Problems		 Any Class I
		Process		 or above
		Hidden Standards
		Book of Case
		Remedies

Grade 0	Communications	Level 0 Processes	Keyed-Out Clear	SH or HGCs—
Release	Release	(0-0, 0-A, etc)	Book I Clear	Any Class 0
				or above

Ungraded	Scientologist	Assists of all	None	Anywhere—any
		types		Qualified
				auditor or
				Scientologist

It is obvious then that GRADE CERTIFICATES FOR PRECLEARS lapse and are no longer issued and are replaced by Release awards, awarding “Grade ____Release” when attained.

It is also obvious that as these states all existed before they were discovered then REHABILITATION OF FORMER RELEASE is addressed to rehabilitating these grades. When rehabilitation is done and the state recovered for the pc a “Grade_ Release” for the Grade actually recovered is issued.

The SAME rehabilitation processes as issued are used for every type of Release.

Preclears were sometimes released in more than one grade and Former Release is rehabilitated (and sold) for each grade the pc was formerly released on.

All grades formerly attained must each one in turn be found and rehabilitated and each one is separately declared by Certs & Awards. Therefore a pc going release on a simple Qual Division check-out must be urged to get a rehabilitation as there may be other former release states there and for anyone rehabilitated as a former Release many other grades (as per chart above) are available to be audited up to.

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

REHABILITATION OF FORMER RELEASE

Technically you will find just these phenomena as given in the Routing Chart of Auditor 10 and the 22 Sept HCOB were the subjects of release.

Sometimes a pc was according to him released formerly on some other process or subject than those given on the Chart. You will however find that it relates to one of the Grade Subjects (Comm, Problems, O/W, ARC Brks, Service Facs, as the total of the Grades up to IV).

Example: Pc reads as Released on CCHs. OK, that was a Problems or a Comm Release. Why? It was because pc came to PT away from his problems of the past or because pc got into comm with the universe. Just decide which.

Example: Pc checks as Released on the button “Importance”, run in brackets or concepts. This wasn’t any Grade Vl Release! It was probably Problems that were cleaned up or even O/Ws; therefore it was a Grade I or II.

You have to see which Release Grade it was and that’s easy since the pc will tell you even without your asking that he “got over his ARC Breaks” or “His problems didn’t worry him”.

On old-time processes, R2-12, Rising Scale, even Engram Running, the point where Release was attained was because a Comm block, a Problem, an O/W, an ARC Break cleaned up. It wasn’t the old process that determines the Grade the pc was formerly released at so much as which of the Grade subjects were relieved at the time.
ERROR

The biggest error you can make in rehabilitation of a former release is to grade him too high and by-pass available charge for further releasing.

In the earlier grades you can go from Grade IV Release to Grade 0 Release to Grade II, etc.

They are not entirely consecutive from 0 to IV. They are from V up.

For instance you rehabilitate a pc as Grade II Release (overts and withholds) by standard rehab approach. He is then declared a Grade II Release of course. However he can be run on Comm Processes to obtain Grade 0 Release or on Problems to obtain Grade I Release and better had be.

As we have formerly released so many on so many different processes the background for rehabilitation is ragged at this time.

New people can be moved up smoothly from Zero to IV. Older Scientologists will go up and down from Zero to IV.

You will find at times that somebody you are trying to audit to a certain Grade suddenly recalls being released at that Grade. The proper action then is rehabilitation of the Grade, not continuing to run the Grade.

All this is really quite simple.

The BIGGEST error is and will continue to be not noticing a state of Release occurring while running a process and then overrunning it and engulfing it. You don’t always see the free, floating needle—it is at times brief.

NERVES

For a while auditors will be very nervy and err by underrunning processes and failing to flatten them. Some auditors will see a floating needle everywhere. Some will remain blind to them and grind on and on.

The thing to do is eventually find the happy medium. Don’t underrun or overrun. Just notice when the process has produced a floating needle and carry on when it has not. And listen for those big pc upsurges in tone and halt there. And watch for the rising Tone Arm that goes to 5. Mostly it’s an overrun. But some pcs who always were at 5 weren’t ever formerly released and will need Power Processes to get them started. Power Processing also combines a lot of lower grade results. But it is hard to Power Process pcs who have never had lower grade releasing. The Power Processing becomes very lengthy. However, real tough cases can’t attain lower grade release states and so have to be Power Processed at once instead of after properly attaining the lower grades. These “at once” Power Process cases, who have had no former release grade, are pretty Suppressive. However, some pcs’ Tone Arms can be at 5 and the pc can act Suppressive if it all stems from unnoticed lower Grade releasing that was never observed or rehabilitated .

It is interesting that a Grade V Release (Power Process) cannot thereafter be processed below his Grade. But this is a new set of processes. You won’t find any Former Release Grade Vs. They just never made Grade V before, even by accident.

Grade VI Releases (R6 EW) don’t easily respond thereafter to Power Processes. But remember, that’s a Grade VI Release, not somebody who came up with a few bits of R6 EW.

You can’t run a Grade VII (Clear) on anything but he can be drilled on getting about the universe and getting familiar with himself and what he can do.

Grades VI and VII really cannot be successfully audited except by oneself—solo. If somebody else did audit them on a pc, the pc would not prosper. He’d be a fool and quite confused. These Grades (VI and VII) require knowledge. Without it it’s pitiful. Auditors who have tried to audit raw meat pcs on these Grades have gotten into serious messes not with us but in their own activities all stemming from trying to make a baby be vice president in six easy lessons. Two such auditors blew Scientology—they themselves had no real data or release grade or even case gain yet they tried to use VI materials on raw meat and it all went wrong and the pcs today mostly snarl and natter. Their way is barred by their antagonism.

It takes a real thetan to stand up to VI and VII. Ask somebody who has been there.

I trust these new Grades I found will help straighten out a lot of things.

                                        						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 29 SEPTEMBER 1965

Remimeo
All Students
Saint Hill Courses
All staff
CYCLICAL AND NON-CYCLICAL PROCESS
CONCLUSIONS

A Non-Cyclical Process (i.e. a repetitive process which does not cause the preclear to cycle on the Time Track) is concluded precisely as stated in HCO Bulletin 3 July 1 965.

A Cyclic Process—a repetitive process which does cause the preclear to cycle on the Time Track as in Recall type processes—must be concluded in Model Session as follows

“Where are you now on the Time Track?”

“I will continue this process until you are close to present time.” (After each command ask “When?”) When the pc is in PT, “That was the body of the session.”

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1965
Issue II
Remimeo	
Franchise
Students
BPI
All Levels

THE CONTINUING OVERT ACT

Pity the poor fellow who commits daily harmful acts.

He’ll never make it.

A criminal pilfering the cash box once a week has himself stopped cold as far as case gains are concerned.

In 1954 I counted some noses. I checked up on 21 cases who had never had any gains since 1950. 17 turned out to be criminals! The other 4 were beyond the reach of investigation.

That gave me my first clue.

For some years then, I watched for no-gain cases and carefully followed up those that I could. They had major or minor criminal backgrounds.

This gave the 1959 breakthrough on the meter checks (Sec Checking).

Following it further since 1959 I have finally amassed enough histories to state:

THE PERSON WHO IS NOT GETTING CASE GAINS IS COMMITTING CONTINUING OVERTS.

While this sounds like a very good “out” for us, we assume that the auditor at least tried something sensible.

Today—the running of a pc by grades is a saving grace for merely “tough cases”. Directors of Processing are doing well with the modern graded process approach, level by level, and the D of P Washington has just told me they were cracking cases with the lowest grade processes DC had never been able to handle well before.

So, given processing by Grades (the best case approach we’ve ever had), we crack the rough ones.

But will that be all cases?

There’s still one. The case who continually commits overts before, during and after processing.

He won’t make it.

One thing helps this, however.

You have seen the Ethics Codes appear.
By putting a bit of control in the Scientology environment we have enough threat to restrain dramatization.

The phenomena is this: The reactive bank can exert stress on the pc if it is not obeyed. Discipline must exert just a shade more stress against dramatization than the bank does. This checks the performance of the continual overt long enough to let processing bite.

Not everyone is a continuous overt committer by a thousand to one. But this phenomenon is not confined to the no-gain case.

The slow gain case is also committing overts the auditor doesn’t see.

Therefore a little discipline in the environment speeds the slow gain case, the one we’re more interested in.

The no-gain case, frankly, is one I am not panting to solve. If a fellow wants to sell his next hundred trillion for the sake of the broken toy he stole, I’m afraid I can’t be bothered. I have no contract with any Big Thetan to save the world complete.

It is enough for me to know:

1. 	Where bottom is, and

2. 	How to help speed slow gain cases.

Bottom is the chap who eats your lunch apple and says the children did it. Bottom is the fellow who sows the environment with secret suppressive acts and vicious generalities.

The slow gain case responds to a bit of “keep your nose clean, please, while I apply the thetan-booster.”

The fast gain case does his job and doesn’t give a hoot about threatened discipline if it’s fair. And the fast gain case helps out and the fast gain case can be helped by a more orderly environment. The good worker works more happily when bad workers see the pitfalls and desist from distracting him.

So we all win.

The no-gain case? Well, he sure doesn’t deserve any gain. One pc in a thousand. And he yaps and groans and says “Prove it works” and blames us and raises hell. He makes us think we fail.

Look down in our Sthil files. There are actually thousands upon thousands of Scientologists there who each one comment on how wonderful it is and how good they feel. There are a few dozen or so who howl they haven’t been helped! What a ratio! Yet I believe some on staff think we have a lot of dissatisfied people. These no-gain characters strew so much entheta around that we think we fail. Look in the Saint Hill files sometime! Those many thousands of reports continue to pour in from around the world with hurrah! Only the few dozen groan.

But long ago I closed my book on the no-gain case. Each of those few dozen no-gains tell frightening lies to little children, pour ink on shoes, say how abused they are while tearing the guts out of those unlucky enough to be around them. They are suppressive persons, every one. I know. I’ve seen them all the way down to the little clinker they call their soul. And I don’t like what I saw.

The people who come to you with wild discreditable rumours, who seek to tear people’s attention off Scientology, who chew up orgs, are suppressive persons.
Well, give them a good rock and let them suppress it!

I can’t end this HCO B without a confession. I know how to cure them rather easily.

Maybe I’ll never let it be done.

For had they had their way we would have lost our chance. It’s too near to think about.

After all, we have to earn our freedom. I don’t care much for those who didn’t help.

The rest of us had to sweat a lot harder than was necessary to make it come true.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 OCTOBER 1965

Remimeo
All Students

MUTTER TR

NAME:	Mutter TR.

PURPOSE: 	To perfect muzzled auditing comm cycle.

COMMANDS: 	“Do fish swim?” “Do birds fly?”

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

TRAINING STRESS:

1. 	Coach has student give command.

2. 	Coach mutters an unintelligible answer at different times.

3. 	Student acknowledges.

4. 	Coach flunks if student does anything else but acknowledge.

(Note: 	This is the entirety of this Drill. It is not to be confused with any other Training Drill.)

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

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

6510C14 SHSpec-68 Briefing to Review Auditors

There are three key data that go out in an org and therefore are essential to be known by the Department of Review, that LRH hasn’t been able to teach Tech, Qual or orgs.  You will hit them in Review, because no one else will have gotten them:

1.  A HIGH TA IS OVERRUN.

There is no other reason for a high TA.  Review’s problem is to find what was overrun and how it was overrun.  When someone comes in who has never been audited, and who has never been near another “therapy” or practice, and whose TA is at 5.0, he has still been overrun on something.  You just have your work cut out for you in finding it.  Don’t throw away the datum, the way everyone else has.  Using this datum, you are likely to find some interesting things. Say someone went release on Christianity at age six, or on exercise at age twenty, and then went on past that point, doing it some more.  Releases don’t only happen in scientology.  It is likely to be some wisdom or therapy that released him.  They are all failed technologies.  All past wisdoms may have had technologies that have been alter-ised and lost.  We almost went that route by not recognizing the state of release and the phenomenon of the F/N.

What has been overrun is not necessarily what the PC was running when the TA went high.  You might have overrun some earlier release.  It may, for instance, be a restimulation “of an earlier overrun communication release.” The PC could have been a problems release and gotten keyed in again on a ruds question.  If the HGC or field auditor didn’t repair it by asking, as a first question, “What was overrun?”, they would never solve it.  They would get the wrong overrun.  You must find what, exactly, the release was on.  Which or what one was it?  Get the right when and the right what, and the TA will blow down, and the needle will float.  You’ve got to rehab the right release to get the high TA down .  There could be other overruns on the case, too, but there is one that is making the high TA.  Get that, and the rehab tech will get it to F/N, quickly or less quickly.  

2.  A ROLLER-COASTER CASE HAS AN SP IN THE VICINITY.

The anatomy of the PTS is that of a problem: postulate/counter-postulate.  The person’s purpose (postulate) has been or is being suppressed (counter-postulate).  There is no other source of roller-coaster.  An SP gives the PTS a problem.  When the PC roller-coasters, he has run into a postulate/counter-postulate situation since his last gain. A PTS really does make trouble for the auditor, the org, and himself.  Ethics exists to get tech in.  If it is ever used to throw tech out, it is being used suppressively.

Search and discovery is used to find the suppressions that a person has had in life.  The S and D question is:

1.  “What’s been your main purpose in life?”

2.  “Who opposed it?”  

This often makes a problems release in minutes.  With a PTS or with any problem you want to solve, “find the source of the counter-postulate....  Man gets “solutions’ to problems....  He leaves the [two opposed postulates] in place, not knowing the definition of a problem, and then “solves’ the resulting collision, as in Dialectical Materialism -- the anatomy of a problem gone mad.  “Any idea is the product of two forces,” is the backbone of Dialectical Materialism.”  To solve a problem, look over the whole perimeter of counter-postulates and find what is the source of the problem.  If you handle the problem for the PC, often the problem will evaporate for the other person, also.  Problems sometimes evaporate in the physical universe when you find the source of the counter-postulate.  In ethics, “when you see that the disconnection or the handle ... causes an enormous problem for the [PTS] or for the other person from whom they are disconnecting, you have invariably found the wrong person....  PTS is the manifestation of a postulate/counter-postulate.”  Find who, when, where, and what.  You could list, “What purpose of yours has been thwarted?” You can get a Grade I release with this.

Suppressives are now to be lo ated in Review, because ethics has flubbed it too much.  PTS’s go to ethics after Review to have note made of the fact that they ar PTS and to get a statement made of handle or disconnect.

A PTS condition can be caused by a suppressive action, as well as by a suppressive person.  For instance, if you overrun a PC past release, the PC goes PTS to the auditor, just as a mechanical action.  Self-auditing is a potential hidden source of overrun.  You don’t declare the auditor an SP.  It was a suppressive act, that’s all.  The definition of PTS is “connected to a suppressive person or action.”  The action could be inadvertent.

So you find the suppressive person.  The person may have only been suppressive for five minutes, or he may have been suppressive for a lifetime. Someone could be PTS and overrun.  In that case, you must get the suppression off and rehab the process.

A suppressive person isn’t someone with horns.  It is someone who has had a counter-postulate to the PC.  A person may occasionally commit suppressive acts, or he may be habitually suppressive.  Someone who is routinely suppressive in life, invalidative of scientology, and trying to keep people from getting well is a social menace.  He is the subject of ethics.  He is the one who gets declared, not the auditor who overran a process from some inadvertent or stupid mistake.  

When you tell a person the right SP, it is like locating and indicating BPC.  You should get a blowdown and GI’s.  If the PC again roller-coasters, you’ve got another SP.  So there could be several SP’s on the case.  You don’t go looking for all of them at the same time, but [after you find one suppressive] look for another one.  If you found all the SP’s and suppressive actions in a person’s lifetime, he would be a problems release.  And if he goes release on problems, he won’t go PTS again, unless he goes home and starts self-auditing.  He can overrun himself on self-auditing, so be aware of that.

3.  THE SOURCE OF OVERTS IS AN EARLIER MISUNDERSTOOD WORD.

The source of the overt is the other key datum that has been missed:  A misunderstood word causes individuation, which leads to overts.  The word that a student is arguing with the course supervisor about is later than the one that the student really misunderstood.  Any confusion, stupidity, or upset in study always stems from a misunderstood word earlier than the one he is upset about.  It is always earlier! So the source of the overt is in the formula:

1.  Something is misunderstood.

2.  The person individuates.

3.  He commits overts against the misunderstood thing.  

If what the person thought was the misunderstood was the misunderstood, the problem would have blown.  So it is always earlier.  This datum is the key datum in the area of study and comprehension of existence.  It regulates a person’s I.Q.

The Review action is to look for the earlier area and the earlier word that was misunderstood.  [Cf. Method 1 Word Clearing] You can unburden a few words earlier than where you think the misunderstood word is, then get the misunderstood just before it.  You can date the time of the misunderstood. You should ask what subject the PC was in.  A person isn’t upset with studying.  It is only a misunderstood word.  It is not case, and it is not the environment.  Remember that you are handling fringes on end-words, so don’t push all the way back into R6.  Just find what was happening before he hit the thing he doesn’t understand.

So these three data are the only ones that are really important in Review:

1.  High TA = overrun .

2.  Roller-coaster = PTS = Who is the SP?  That question is the source of hang-ups on the track.  You must find the counter-postulate and the source of the counter-postulate.

3.  Confusion comes from a misunderstood word earlier than the one the person is confused about. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 OCTOBER 1965
Remimeo 
All Staff 
Ethics Hat 
Tech Hats 
Qual Hats
IMPORTANT

POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE ROUTING

The Ethics Officer, when receiving a person who has roller mastered (case improved then dropped), must route that person to Review. Review only must locate the correct Suppressive Person, repeat the correct SP, the right SP.

Review then states:

1. 	Who the SP is (or who they are if more than one);

2. 	That good indicators came in and stayed in visibly when the SP (or SPs) was found.

Review then sends the person to Ethics.

Ethics must require the person as per policy to handle or disconnect.

If the person will not handle or disconnect, the person is sent again to Review as the right SP has NOT been found.

Further UNTIL THE PERSON HAS PAID IN CASH FOR THE REVIEW SEARCH AND DISCOVERY Ethics may not declare the person no longer PTS. (The reason for this is that the person will not pay if the wrong suppressive is found.) HGC Auditors, similarly must send a PTS to Review not Ethics.

Supervisors must send any student PTS only to Review.

Review always sends to Ethics but ONLY when the right SP has been found and indicated .

REVIEW AUDITOR

The Review Auditor uses “Search and Discovery” as will be covered in an HCO B. If this is not to hand, simply find the right SP, indicate it to the person and watch the good indicators come in.

PTSs may not be handled in ANY other way.

The routing is not from Ethics to the Chaplain. Ethics does not route to the Chaplain.

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 5 NOVEMBER 1965

Remimeo
Students
Level I

FIVE WAY BRACKET ON HELP

Commands

How could you help me?

How could I help you?

How could you help another?

How could another help you?

How could another help another?

The above commands are run consecutively as one process—muzzled style.

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 7 NOVEMBER 1965

Remimeo
Qual Personnel
Tech Personnel	
Tech Division
Students
Qual Division
RELEASE REHABILITATION ERROR

The most laughable error commonly being made in Release Rehabilitation is one in which the auditor discounts the value of his own auditing, keys out a lock in a pre-Scientology period and tells the pc he was a Release sometime before he was audited.

Auditors have declared pcs released when 9 days old or in 1942 or almost any earlier time. All through non-comprehension of the phenomenon of Release. It leaves some pretty puzzled pcs too !

“When you fell on your head when you were five you were a former Release because I now have a floating needle.” This auditor statement betrays a lack of comprehension of the phenomenon of Release.

Of course if you key out a major lock you may today get a Release State.

Because the needle floats today does not mean it was floating just before the pc fell on his head at the age of 5.

The pc today, with better understanding through auditing, can attain Release by keying out an incident which made him worse than normal.

His needle was not floating before he gagged on his bottle at the age of two. Blowing the lock of gagging on his bottle may now, added to his new study, the auditor’s interest and the very powerful technology of just basic auditing, make him go Release.

An auditor doing this is downgrading his own presence, skill and comm cycle. These, added to blowing a lock, make a Release today—it does not make a Release years before the pc was ever audited.

I’ve never seen a “natural floating needle” in the absence of auditing. I never expect to.

People are normal, worried, neurotic or psychotic. Hobby therapy, a change of surroundings, taking up tapestry can move a person upscale toward normal. They never moved anyone up to Release. Becoming happier doesn’t key out bank. It causes a person to occlude keyed-in bank—to “forget it”.

Only auditing keys out bank.

And an auditor doing rehabilitation, using a meter, using a comm cycle, using his knowledge of the mind is doing something that was not done before. And he makes Releases. He makes them today by keying out yesterday. He does not make them years ago. He is not auditing years ago. He is auditing today’s pc today and making today’s Release today.

Life keys out no locks. Trillions of years of living never undid a moment of it. Come off the mystic mystic kick that one can if he lives long enough experience himself to Release or Clear. That’s trap.

Do not unduly complicate your actions in Release Rehabilitation by misassigning the pc’s period of Release. If you do he’ll be confused as the datum given him is false.

If you find in asking for a period of Release that you get pre-Scientology times, realize the pc has found something which if released would cause him to go Release today. You’d get the same response if you asked “What period would I have to contact to get you Released?” or “Give me a major time of key-in.” Or “Give me a major time of change.” Or do a Problems Intensive Assessment. Or do an ARC Break of former times assessment. You’ll come up with the same date for it. Treat that period with rehab processes (or any of many other processes) and you’ll get the phenomenon of Release right before your eyes.

So don’t be telling pcs “You were a Release before you were ever audited. I see here you were a Release just before you fell in the garbage can at two.” Both statements are false.

Lasting results are based on Truth alone.

Do what you’re doing in rehabs. Just don’t make a false assertion about it. Your auditing is pretty powerful. Don’t discount it.

                                        				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 8 NOVEMBER 1965
Remimeo
Tech Personnel	Tech Div
Qual Personnel	Qual Div

SUPPRESSIVES AND HIDDEN STANDARDS

If you find a Suppressive on a case you will also find a chronic problem.

A problem is postulate—counter-postulate.

When a person is faced with suppression he is facing a counter-postulate.

A hidden standard is a problem a person thinks must be resolved before auditing can be seen to have worked. It’s a standard by which to judge Scientology or auditing or the auditor.

This hidden standard is always an old problem of long duration. It is a postulate—counter-postulate situation—the source of the counter-postulate was suppressive to the pc.

Therefore you can always find a Suppressive by finding a pc’s hidden standard and following it back to when it began. You will find there a Suppressive to the pc.

Similarly if you trace back the persons and groups who have been suppressive of the pc you will find a hidden standard popping into view.

The datum is—a case that betters then worsens (a “Roller Coaster Case” or a “Roller Coaster”) is always connected to a suppressive person.

The Roller Coaster is caused by the hidden standard going into action. “My eyesight didn’t get better.” Locate a present time Suppressive on the case and trace that suppressive back to others earlier and you suddenly see the pc brighten up and (apparently for no reason) state his eyesight suddenly improved.

A case that betters and worsens (a Roller Coaster) is always connected to a suppressive person and will not get steady gain until the Suppressive is found on the case or the basic suppressive person earlier.

Because the case doesn’t get well he or she is a Potential Trouble Source. To us, to others, to himself. You can’t successfully audit that pc because there is a hidden standard. It makes the pc think he is no better. Suppressives also suppress the pc just like that so long as a hidden standard is present.

Find the Suppressive, make the pc handle or disconnect. Then audit the pc up to Problems Release by getting rid of the hidden standard and the basic suppressive.

Never audit a pc who is a Potential Trouble Source other than on the infallible, never varied datum, a Roller Coaster is always a PTS connected to an SP.

Note also that a person going clear is now a thetan with a new view of life and has new hidden standards (requiring the location of suppressives) which he had no reality on as a Man or later as a Release.

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 16 NOVEMBER 1965
Issue II
Remimeo
Students

COMMANDS FOR UPPER INDOCTRINATION
TR6, TR7, TR9

(This HCO B cancels commands as given in
Scientology Training Course Manual)

The commands to be used for 8-C are: Look at that wall. Thank you. Walk over to that wall. Thank you. Touch that wall. Thank you. Turn around. Thank you.

The auditor points to show which wall each time.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 NOVEMBER 1965 
Remimeo 
Students
LEVEL I

PROBLEMS PROCESS

This is an extremely fast process for use at Level I to handle problems. The process commands are simply:

“What is the problem?”

“What solutions have you had for that problem?”

One gets the pc to give his problem then runs TA off solutions. Then a new statement of the problem and more questions about solutions.

These commands are run in very strict muzzled style—no additives or diversions whatsoever.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 NOVEMBER 1965

Remimeo 
Students SH & Academies 
All Auditors
AUDITING REPORTS

An auditing report is the report of a session given, written during the session, on the session.

It is not a copy of the report of a session given. Or a report drawn from notes taken on a session given.

Auditing reports and worksheets should be neat as possible under the circumstances of a session.

They must contain pertinent data of the session given, i.e. BDs noted, TA and time notations, etc. These should be entered on the worksheet at the time they occur.

Later entries done to clarify bad writing where one was rushed or where a shorthand was done that is not clear to the D of P or Examiner, should be indicated as a later entry by using a different colored pen, etc.

A made-up report, or one done later to obtain neatness or completeness by an auditor who failed to keep a good session report at the time of the session, will be disqualified as evidence of auditor ability when presented to the Examiner and chitted by the D of P when turned in by an HGC auditor.

The whole idea of requiring an auditor report of a session is to have a record of the session for the D of P or Examiner, upon which to adjudicate what is going on with a PC. And a report done later is NOT a report of the session given.

The Summary Report, done after the session, should be a l 5-minute or so summary and should be done immediately after the session, not a day later, and should be done as per policy on Summary Reports. A Summary cannot be substituted for the actual auditing report.

								L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1965
Remimeo
Required for
Level IV Students
To Review Auditors
LEVEL IV

SEARCH AND DISCOVERY

Prerequisite: A Knowledge of Ethics
Definitions and Purposes.

The process called Search and Discovery requires as well a good knowledge of Ethics.

One must know what a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON is, what a POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is and the mechanism of how and why a case Roller Coasters and what that is. All this data exists in Ethics policy letters and should be studied well before one attempts a “Search and Discovery” or further study of this HCOB. Ethics is not merely a legal action—it handles the whole phenomena of case worsening (Roller Coaster) after processing and without this technology an auditor easily becomes baffled and tends to plunge and squirrel. The only reason a case Roller Coasters after good standard auditing is the PTS phenomena and a Suppressive is present.

THREE TYPES

There are Three Types of PTS.

Type One is the easy one. The SP on the case is right in present time, actively suppressing the person.

Type Two is harder for the apparent Suppressive Person in present time is only a restimulator for the actual suppressive.

Type Three is beyond the facilities of orgs not equipped with hospitals as these are entirely psychotic.

HANDLING TYPE ONE PTS

The Type One is normally handled by an Ethics Officer in the course of a hearing.

The person is asked if anyone is invalidating him or his gains or Scientology and if the pc answers with a name and is then told to handle or disconnect from that person the good indicators come in promptly and the person is quite satisfied.

If however there is no success in finding the SP on the case or if the person starts naming Org personnel or other unlikely persons as SP the Ethics Officer must realize that he is handling a Type Two PTS and, because the Auditing will consume time, sends the person to Tech or Qual for a Search and Discovery.

It is easy to tell a Type One PTS from a Type Two. The Type One brightens up at once and ceases to Roller Coaster the moment the present time SP is spotted. The pc ceases to Roller Coaster. The pc does not go back on it and begin to beg off. The pc does not begin to worry about the consequences of disconnection. If the pc does any of these things, then the pc is a Type Two.
It can be seen that Ethics handles the majority of PTSs in a fast manner. There is no trouble about it. All goes smoothly.

It can also be seen that Ethics cannot afford the time to handle a Type Two PTS and there is no reason the Type Two should not pay well for the Auditing.

Therefore, when Ethics finds its Type One approach does not work quickly, Ethics must send the person to the proper division that is handling Search and Discovery.

TYPE TWO

The pc who isn’t sure, won’t disconnect, or still Roller Coasters, or who doesn’t brighten up, can’t name any SP at all, is a Type Two.

Only Search and Discovery will help.

SEARCH AND DISCOVERY

The first thing to know is that CASE WORSENING IS CAUSED ONLY BY A PTS SITUATION.

There never will be any other reason.

As soon as you doubt this datum and think about “other causes” or try to explain it some other way you no longer prevent cases from worsening and no longer rescue those who have worsened.

The second thing to know is that A SUPPRESSIVE IS ALWAYS A PERSON, A BEING OR A GROUP OF BEINGS. A suppressive is not a condition, a problem, a postulate. Problems and Counter-Postulates come into the matter but the SP as a being or group must always be located as a being or a group, not as merely an idea. As the technology is close to and similar to that of a service facsimile, a poorly trained auditor can get confused between them and produce a condition he says is the cause. Persons who cannot confront and who therefore see persons as ideas not people are the ones most likely to fail in doing Search and Discovery.

The third thing to know is that there can be an actual SP and another person or being similar to the actual one who is only an apparent SP.

An actual SP actually suppresses another.

An apparent SP only reminds the pc of the actual one and so is restimulated into being a PTS.

The actual SP can be in present time (Type One PTS) or is in the past or distant (Type Two PTS).

The Type Two always has an apparent SP who is not the SP on the case, is confusing the two and is acting PTS only because of restimulation, not because of suppression.

Search and Discovery as a process is done exactly by the general rules of listing. One lists for persons or groups who are or have suppressed the pc. The list is complete when only one item reads on nulling and this is the item.

If the item turns out to be a group, one does a second list of who or what would represent that group, gets the list long enough to leave on nulling only one item reading, and that is the SP.

An incident is not a person or a group.

A condition is not a person or a group. And a group is not a person, what you want is one being.

The E-Meter signs are unmistakable and the good indicators come in strongly when the actual SP is found.

This is the entire action. It is liable to the various ills and errors of writing and nulling a list, such as overlisting, underlisting, ARC Breaking the pc by by-passing the item or getting an incomplete list. These are avoided by knowing one’s business as an Auditor and being able to handle an E-Meter with skill and confidence.

When one goofs on a Search and Discovery and finds the wrong actual SP the signs are the same as those where a Type Two is handled as a Type One—not sure, no good indicators, Roller Coasters again, etc.

The actual SP can be back track but it is seldom vital to go far out of PT and usual for a lifetime person to turn up.

Done correctly the pc’s good indicators come in at once, the pc cognites, the meter reacts very well with Blowdowns and repeated long falls, and the pc ceases to Roller Coaster.

Care should be taken not to get too enthusiastic in going far back track on the pc as you run into whole track implants etc, easily handleable only at Level V. The pc can get “over whumped” if you go too far back and you’ll wish you hadn’t. This normally happens however, only when the pc has been ARC Broken by the Auditor, when the right item has been by-passed and the list is overlong, or when 2 or 3 items are still reading on the list (incomplete list).

Locating a Service Facsimile is quite similar to Search and Discovery but they are different processes entirely.

Only the doingness is similar. In Search and Discovery the end product is a being. In Service Facsimile the end product is an item or concept or idea. Don’t get the two mixed.

HANDLING TYPE THREE

The Type Three PTS is mostly in institutions or would be.

In this case the Type Two’s apparent SP is spread all over the world and is often more than all the people there are—for the person sometimes has ghosts about him or demons and they are just more apparent SPs but imaginary as beings as well.

All institutional cases are PTSs. The whole of insanity is wrapped up in this one fact.

The insane is not just a bad off being, the insane is a being who has been overwhelmed by an actual SP until too many persons are apparent SPs. This makes the person Roller Coaster continually in life. The Roller Coaster is even cyclic (repetitive as a cycle).

Handling an insane person as a Type Two might work but probably not case for case. One might get enough wins on a few to make one fail completely by so many loses on the many.
Just as you tell a Type Two to disconnect from the actual SP (wherever found on the track) you must disconnect the person from the environment.

Putting the person in a current institution puts him in a Bedlam. And when also “treated” it may finish him. For he will Roller Coaster from any treatment given, until made into a Type Two and given a Search and Discovery.

The task with a Type Three is not treatment as such. It is to provide a relatively safe environment and quiet and rest and no treatment of a mental nature at all. Giving  him a quiet court with a motionless object in it might do the trick if he is permitted to sit there unmolested. Medical care of a very unbrutal nature is necessary as intravenous feeding and soporifics (sleeping and quietening drugs) may be necessary, such persons are sometimes also physically ill from an illness with a known medical cure.

Treatment with drugs, shock, operation is just more suppression. The person will not really get well, will relapse, etc.

Standard Auditing on such a person is subject to the Roller Coaster phenomena. They get worse after getting better. “Successes” are sporadic, enough to lead one on, and usually worsen again since these people are PTS.

But removed from apparent SPs, kept in a quiet surroundings, not pestered or threatened or put in fear, the person comes up to Type Two and a Search and Discovery should end the matter. But there will always be some failures as the insane sometimes withdraw into rigid unawareness as a final defense, sometimes can’t be kept alive and sometimes are too hectic and distraught to ever become quiet, the extremes of too quiet and never quiet have a number of psychiatric names such as “catatonia” (withdrawn totally) and “manic” (too hectic).

Classification is interesting but non-productive since they are all PTS, all will Roller Coaster and none can be trained or processed with any idea of lasting result no matter the temporary miracle.

Remove a Type Three PTS from the environment, give him or her rest and quiet, do a Search and Discovery when rest and quiet have made the person Type Two.

(Note: These paragraphs on the Type Three make good a promise given in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health to develop “Institutional Dianetics”.)

The modern mental hospital with its brutality and suppressive treatments is not the way to give a psychotic quiet and rest. Before anything effective can be done in this field a proper institution would have to be provided, offering only rest, quiet and medical assistance for intravenous feedings and sleeping draughts where necessary but not as “treatment” and where no treatment is attempted until the person looks recovered and only then a Search and Discovery as above under Type Two.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1965

Remimeo 
All Students 
St Hill Courses 
All staff
CCHs

(Replaces HCO Bulletin of July 5th, 1963, “CCHs Rewritten”)

As per HCO Pol Ltr May 17th, 65, the CCHs are processes. They are not drills. The following revised rundown on the CCHs is to be used by all Auditors.

CONTROL—COMMUNICATION—HAVINGNESS PROCESSES

The following rundown of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been slightly amended. CCHs are run as follows:

CCH l to a flat point then CCH 2 to a flat point then CCH 3 to a flat point then CCH 4 to a flat point then CCH I to a flat point, etc.

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

No: CCH 1.

NAME:  GIVE ME THAT HAND. Tone 40.

AUDITING COMMANDS:  GIVE ME THAT HAND.

Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the PC’s lap. Making physical contact with the PC’s hand if PC resists. THANK YOU ending each cycle.

All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time. Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the PC, when it happens, and querying it by asking “What’s happening?” This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Run only on the right hand.

AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC seated in chairs without arms. Auditor’s knees on outside of both PC’s knees.

PROCESS PURPOSE:  To demonstrate to PC that control of PC’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting PC to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over towards absolute control of his own body by PC.

Never stop process until a flat place is reached. Freezes may be introduced at end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the PC or to bridge from the process. This is done between two commands, holding the PC’s hand after acknowledgement. PC’s hand should be clasped with exactly correct pressure. Make every command and cycle separate. Maintain Tone 40, stress on intention from Auditor to PC with each command. To leave an instant for PC to do it by own will before Auditor decides to take hand or make contact with it. Auditor indicates hand by nod of head.

Tone 40 Command = Intention without reservation. Change is any physical, observed manifestation.

No: CCH 2.

NAME:  TONE 40 8c

AUDITING COMMANDS: 	YOU LOOK AT THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
	YOU WALK OVER TO THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
	YOU TOUCH THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
	TURN AROUND. THANK YOU.

Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the PC, when it happens, and querying it by asking “What’s happening?” This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Commands smoothly enforced physically when necessary. Tone 40, full intention.

AUDITING POSITION:  Auditor and PC ambulant, Auditor in physical contact with PC as needed.

PROCESS PURPOSE:   To demonstrate to PC that his body can be controlled and thus inviting him to control it. To orient him in his present time Environment. To increase his ability to duplicate and thusly increase his Havingness.

Absolute Auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time. Auditor on PC’s right side. Auditor body acts as block to forward motion when PC turns. Auditor gives command, gives PC a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not block PC from executing commands. Method of introduction as in CCH l. Freezes may be introduced at the end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the PC or to bridge from the process, this being the acknowledgement “THANK YOU” after the command “TURN AROUND”.

CCH 1 and CCH 2 were developed by L. RON HUBBARD in Washington, D.C., in 1957 for the 19th ACC.

No: CCH 3.

NAME:  HAND SPACE MIMICRY

AUDITING COMMANDS: 	Auditor raises 2 hands palms facing PC’s about an equal distance between the Auditor and PC and says “PUT YOUR HANDS AGAINST MINE, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION”. He then makes a simple motion with right hand then left. “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?” Acknowledge answer. Auditor allows PC to break solid comm line. When this is flat, the Auditor does this same with a half inch of space between his and the PC’s palms. The command being “PUT YOUR HANDS FACING MINE ABOUT 1/2 INCH AWAY, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION”. “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?” Acknowledge. When this is flat, Auditor does it with a wider space and so on until PC is able to follow motions a yard away.

AUDITING POSITION:  Auditor and PC seated, close together facing each other, PC’s knees between Auditor’s knees.

PROCESS PURPOSE:   To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid communication line). To get PC into communication by control and duplication. To find Auditor.

Auditor should be gentle and accurate in his motions, all motions being Tone 40, giving PC wins. To be free in 2-way communication. Process is introduced and run as a formal process. If PC dopes off in this process Auditor may take PC’s wrist and help him execute the command one hand at a time. If PC does not answer during anaten to question “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?” Auditor may wait for normal comm lag of that PC, acknowledge and continue process.

TONE 40 Motion = Intention without Reservation. Two-Way Communication = One Question—The Right One.

HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1956 as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant “Look at me. Who am I?” and “Find the auditor” part of rudiments.

No: CCH 4.

NAME:  BOOK MIMICRY

AUDITING COMMANDS:  THERE ARE NO SET VERBAL COMMANDS.

Auditor makes simple motions with a book. Hands book to the PC. PC makes motion, duplicating Auditor’s mirror-image-wise. Auditor asks PC if he is satisfied that the PC duplicated the motion. If PC is and Auditor is also fully satisfied, Auditor takes back the book and goes to next command. If PC is not sure that he duplicated any command, Auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. If PC is sure he did and Auditor can see duplication is pretty wrong, Auditor accepts PC’s answer and continues on a gradient scale of motion either with the left or right hand till PC can do original command correctly. This ensures no invalidation of the PC. Tone 40, only in motions, verbal 2-way quite free.

AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC seated facing each other, a comfortable distance apart.

PROCESS PURPOSE:  To bring up PC’s communication with control and duplication (control and duplication = communication).

Give PC wins. It is necessary for Auditor to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines. Tolerance of plus or minus randomity is apparent here and the Auditor should probably begin on the PC with motions that begin in the same place each time and are neither very fast nor very slow, nor very complex. Introduced by the Auditor seeing that PC understands what is to be done, as there is no verbal command, formal process.

HISTORY.  Developed by LRH for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication. Developed by LRH in London, 1952.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965
(Replaces HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965,
Issue I. This was originally misdated as
1 March 1965)
Remimeo 
Post 
Public
(HCO Division 1)

ETHICS

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS
SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS
THE FAIR GAME LAW

Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.

The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or Groups.

A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology or a pc yet remains connected to a person or group that is a Suppressive Person or Group.

A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.

A Scientologist caught in the situation of being in Scientology while still connected with a Suppressive Person or Group is given a Present Time Problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain, as only a PTP can halt progress of a case. Only ARC Breaks worsen it. To the PTP is added ARC Breaks with the Suppressive Person or Group. The result is no-gain or deterioration of a case by reason of the suppressive connection in the environment. Any Scientologist, in his own experience, can probably recall some such cases and their subsequent upset.

Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen. Quite the contrary. In the most flagrant of such cases the Scientologist’s case worsened and the Suppressive Person or Group sent endless reports to press, police, authorities and the public in general.

Unless the Potential Trouble Source, the preclear caught up in this, can be made to take action of an environmental nature to end the situation one has a pc or Scientologist who may cave in or squirrel because of no case gain and also a hostile environment for Scientology.

This policy letter gives the means and provides the policy for getting the above

situation handled.

A Potential Trouble Source may receive no processing until the situation is handled.

A Suppressive Person or Group becomes “fair game”.

By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.

The families and adherents of Suppressive Persons or Groups may not receive processing. It does not matter whether they are or are not Scientologists. If the families or adherents of Suppressive Persons or Groups are processed, any auditor doing so is guilty of a misdemeanor. (See HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue 11.)

A Potential Trouble Source knowingly permitting himself or herself or the Suppressive Person to be processed without advising the auditor or Scientology authorities is guilty of a crime. (See HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue II.)

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS

Suppressive Acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists.

Such Suppressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology Organizations; public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened; proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the Suppression of Scientology; pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it, reporting or threatenirig to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practising or receiving standard Scientology; bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist including the non-payment of bills or failure to refund without first calling the matter to the attention of the Chairman at Saint Hill and receiving a reply; demanding the return of any or all fees paid for standard training or processing actually received or received in part and still available but undelivered only because of departure of the person demanding (the fees must be refunded but this Policy Letter applies); writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press; testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public; continued membership in a divergent group; continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO; failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts; being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons; organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology; organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices, still calling it Scientology or calling it something else; calling meetings of staffs or field auditors or the public to deliver Scientology into the hands of unauthorized persons or who will suppress it or alter it or who have no reputation for following standard lines and procedures; infiltrating a Scientology group or organization or staff to stir up discontent or protest at the instigation of hostile forces; 1st degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings; mutiny; seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or “to save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology”; engaging in malicious rumour-mongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology or to “safeguard” a position; delivering up the person of a Scientologist without defense or protest to the demands of civil or criminal law; falsifying records that then imperil the liberty or safety of a Scientologist; knowingly giving false testimony to imperil a Scientologist; receiving money, favours or encouragement to suppress Scientology or Scientologists; sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology such as a student, a preclean a ward or a patient; blackmail of Scientologists or Scientology organizations threatened or accomplished—in which case the crime being used for blackmail purposes becomes fully outside the reach of Ethics and is absolved the fact of blackmail unless repeated.
Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings and so place themselves beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being.

If a person or a group that has committed a Suppressive Act comes to his, her or their senses and recants, the HCO Secretary:

A. 	Tells the person or group to stop committing present time overts and to cease all attacks and suppressions so he, she or they can get a case gain;
 
B. 	Requires a public announcement to the effect that they realize their actions were ignorant and unfounded and stating where possible the influences or motivations which caused them to attempt to suppress or attack Scientology; gets it signed before witnesses and published broadly, particularly to persons directly influenced or formerly associated with the former offender or offenders. The letter should be calculated to expose any conspiracy to suppress Scientology or the preclear or Scientologist if such existed;

B(1)	Requires that all debts owed to Scientology organizations are paid off;

C. 	Requires training beginning at HAS at their expense if Division 4 (Training and Processing) will have the person or the group members;

D. 	Makes a note of the matter with copies of the statement and file in the Ethics files;

E. 	Informs the Chairman at Saint Hill and forwards a duplicate of the original copy which shows signatures.

Any Potential Trouble Source owing money to any Scientology organization is handled the same as any other Scientologist. Failure to discharge a financial obligation becomes a civil Ethics matter after normal, within-org avenues of collection have been exhausted.

Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.

Civil Court action against SPs to effect collection of monies owed may be resorted to, as they are Fair Game.

Until a Suppressive Person or Group is absolved, but not during the period when the person requests and has a Committee of Evidence, or an amnesty occurs, no Scientology Ethics other than this HCO Policy Letter applies to such persons, no Committee of Evidence may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any offenses of any kind against the Suppressive Person except to establish in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or the Scientologist.

The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.

Such persons are in the same category as those whose certificates have been cancelled, and persons whose certificates, classifica’tions and awards have been cancelled are also in this category.

The imagination must not be stretched to place this iabel on a person. Errors, misdemeanors and crimes do not label a person as a Suppressive Person or Group. Only High Crimes do so.

A Committee of Evidence may be called by any Convening Authority who wishes more concrete evidence of efforts to suppress Scientology or Scientologists but if such a Committee’s findings, passed on, establish beyond reasonable doubt Suppressive Acts, this Policy Letter applies and the person is fair game.

Outright or covert acts knowingly designed to impede or destroy Scientology or Scientologists is what is meant by Acts Suppressive of Scientology or Scientologists.

The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics requires that actions destructive of the advance of the many, by Scientology means, overtly or covertly undertaken with the direct target of destroying Scientology as a whole, or a Scientologist in particular, be summarily handled due to the character of the reactive mind and the consequent impulses of the insane or near insane to ruin every chance of Mankind via Scientology.

POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE

A Scientologist connected by familial or other ties to a person who is guilty of Suppressive Acts is known as a Potential Trouble Source or Trouble Source. The history of Dianetics and Scientology is strewn with these. Confused by emotional ties, dogged in refusing to give up Scientology, yet invalidated by a Suppressive Person at every turn they cannot, having a PTP, make case gains. If they would act with determination one way or the other—reform the Suppressive Person or disconnect, they could then make gains and recover their potential. If they make no determined move, they eventually succumb.

Therefore this Policy Letter extends to suppressive non-Scientology wives and husbands and parents, or other family members or hostile groups or even close friends. So long as a wife or husband, father or mother or other family connection, who is attempting to suppress the Scientology spouse or child, or hostile group remains continuingly acknowledged or in communication with the Scientology spouse or child or member, then that Scientologist or preclear comes under the family or adherent clause and may not be processed or further trained until he or she has taken appropriate action to cease to be a Potential Trouble Source.

The validity of this policy is borne out by the fact that the US government raids and other troubles were instigated by wives, husbands or parents who were actively suppressing a Scientologist, or Scientology. The suppressed Scientologist did not act in good time to avert the trouble by handling the antagonistic family member as a suppressive source or disconnect fully.

Disconnection from a family member or cessation of adherence to a Suppressive Person or Group is done by the Potential Trouble Source publicly publishing the fact, as in the legal notices of “The Auditor” and public announcements and taking any required civil action such as disavowal, separation or divorce and thereafter cutting all further communication and disassociating from the person or group.

Unwarranted or threatened disconnection has the recourse of the person or group being disconnected from requesting a Committee of Evidence from the nearest Convening Authority (or HCO) and producing to the Committee any evidence of actual material assistance to Scientology without reservation or bad intent. The Committee must be convened if requested.

Before publicly disconnecting, the Scientologist would be well advised to fully inform the person he or she accuses of Suppressive Acts of the substance of this policy letter and seek a reform of the person, disconnecting only when honest efforts to reform the person have not been co-operated with or have failed. And only then disconnecting publicly. Such efforts should not be unduly long as any processing of the Potential Trouble Source is denied or illegal while the connection exists and a person not actively seeking to settle the matter may be subjected to a Committee of Evidence if processed meanwhile.

The real motives of Suppressive Persons have been traced to quite sordid hidden desires-in one case the wife wanted her husband’s death so she could get his money, and fought Scientology because it was making the husband well. Without handling the wife or the connection with the woman the Scientologist, as family, drifted on with the situation and the wife was able to cause a near destruction of Scientology in that area by false testimony to the police and government and press. Therefore this is a serious thing—to tolerate or remain connected to a source of active suppression of a Scientologist or Scientology without legally disconnecting the relationship or acting to expose the true motives behind the hostility and reform the person. No money particularly may be accepted as fee or loan from a person who is “family” to a Suppressive Person and therefore a Potential Trouble Source. There is no source of trouble in Scientology’s history greater than this one for frequency and lack of attention.

Anyone absolved of Suppressive Acts by an amnesty or a Committee of Evidence ceases to be fair game. Anyone found guilty of Suppressive Acts by a Committee of Evidence and its Convening Authorities remains fair game unless saved by an amnesty.

This Policy Letter is calculated to prevent future distractions of this nature as time goes on.
 
RIGHTS OF A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON OR GROUP

A truly Suppressive Person or Group has no rights of any kind as Scientologists and actions taken against them are not punishable under Scientology Ethics Codes.

However a person or group may be falsely labelled a Suppressive Person or Group. Should the person or group claim the label to be false, he, she or they may request a Committee of Evidence via their nearest HCO. The executive with the power to convene a Committee of Evidence must do so if one is requested for recourse or redress of wrongs.

The person or representative of the group labelled Suppressive is named as an Interested Party to the Committee. They attend it where it convenes.

The Committee must pay attention to any actual evidences that the person or group that is accused of being suppressive may produce particularly to the effect of having helped Scientology or Scientologists or a Scientologist and if this is seen to outweigh the accusations, proof or lack of it, the person is absolved.

Any knowingly false testimony, forgeries or false witnesses introduced by the person or group accused of being suppressive can result in an immediate finding against the person or group.

Any effort to use copies of the testimony or findings of a Committee of Evidence called for this purpose or holding it to scorn in a civil court immediately reverses any favourable finding and automatically labels the person or group suppressive.

Failing to prove guilt of Suppressive Acts, the Committee must absolve the person or group publicly.

If the findings, as passed upon by the Convening Authority demonstrate guilt, the person or group is so labelled as a Suppressive Person or Group.

RECOURSE OF A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE

A person labelled a Potential Trouble Source and so barred from receiving auditing, may request a Committee of Evidence of the nearest HCO as recourse if he or she contests the allegation.

The Committee of Evidence requested must be convened by the nearest Convening Authority.

If evidences of disconnection are given or if the alleged Suppressive Person or Group is clearly and beyond reasonable doubt shown not to be guilty of Suppressive Acts or is shown clearly to have reformed, the Committee of Evidence findings and the Convening Authority must remove the label of Potential Trouble Source from the Scientologist and the label Suppressive Person or Group from the suspected person or group.

But should the former Potential Trouble Source’s state of case show no gain after reasonable time in processing, any executive of Division 4 (Training and Processing) may order a new Committee of Evidence in the matter and if it and its Convening Authority reverses the former findings, the labels are applied. But no auditor may be disciplined for auditing either during the period between the two findings.

RECOURSE OF AN AUDITOR

An auditor disciplined for processing a Potential Trouble Source or a Suppressive Person or a member of a Suppressive Group, may request a Committee of Evidence if he can persuade the Potential Trouble Source and the Suppressive Person or a representative of the Suppressive Group to appear before it.

The auditor so requesting may also have named as an Interested Party or Parties with himself the person or persons who supplied the information or misinformation concerning his actions.
 No damages or costs may be borne by or ordered by a Committee of Evidence in cases involving Potential Trouble Sources or Suppressive Persons or Groups.

When the Potential Trouble Source or Suppressive Person or Group representative fail to appear before a Committee of Evidence on a Bill of Particulars labelling persons as Potential Trouble Sources or Suppressive Persons or Groups at the published time of its convening, the Bill of Particulars stand as proven and the Convening Authority is bound so to declare.

EVIDENCE OF DISCONNECTION

Any HCO Secretary may receive evidences of disconnection or disavowal or separation or divorce and, on finding them to be bona fide, may publicly announce them on a public board and legal notices in “The Auditor”.

The HCO Secretary must place copies of such evidences in the Ethics file and in the CF folders of all persons named in them.

The disconnecting person then ceases to be a Potential Trouble Source.

The procedure for a recanting Suppressive Person or Group is outlined above.

EVIDENCES OF SUPPRESSION

It is wise for any Scientologist, HCO Secretary or Committee of Evidence in matters concerning Suppressive Acts to obtain valid documents, letters, testimonies duly signed and witnessed, affadavits duly sworn to and other matters and evidences which would have weight in a court of law. Momentary spite, slander suits, charges of Scientology separating families, etc., are then guarded against.

If matters concerning Suppressive Acts are given good and alert attention, properly enforced, they will greatly accelerate the growth of Scientology and bring a new calmness to its people and organizations and far better case gains where they have not heretofore been easy to achieve.

Preclears with present time problems, ARC broken with associated but Suppressive Persons will not obtain case gains but on the contrary, may experience great difficulty.

Observance of these facts and disciplines can help us all.

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 27 DECEMBER 1965
Remimeo
Solo Audit Course
Clearing Course
Saint Hill Pcs
Franchise	
VITAMINS

I have found that 600 milligrams of Vitamin E (minimum) per day assists Scientology processing very markedly.

Data on Vitamin E applied to other fields is available from Webber Pharmaceuticals, Ltd, 14 Ronson Drive, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada. An excellent popular book on Vitamin E in its various uses is available from booksellers. It is Your Key to a Healthy Heart: The suppressed record of Vitamin E by Herbert Bailey, published by the Shilton Company, Philadelphia. The Shute Foundation for Medical Research, London, Ontario, Canada, pioneered the subject and will give general advice.

In Johannesburg due to high altitude, no pc may be processed who is not taking at least 600 mg per day of Vitamin E.

The apparent action of this Vitamin is to oxygenate the blood and inhibit the body from pulling in mental masses due to oxygen-energy starvation.

In areas where it is against the law to recommend vitamins this HCO B does not apply.

Vitamin E, according to Bailey, is suppressed because it cures heart disease which furnishes 50% of the revenue of the U.S. medical doctor.

I read the book by Bailey and did some experimental work with Vitamin E with interesting success. Webber Pharmaceuticals has airmailed me further literature.

It is useless, I believe, to take less than 600 mg per day and lesser doses have little or no reaction on processing. One has to take it for two or three days before it begins to have any effect.

The most direct result is quite measurable on an E-Meter. Reads of the needle become longer. Tone Arm action increases.

It works by itself but is best taken with an old-time “Guk Bomb”. The formula of the “bomb” is variable but is basically 100 mg of Vitamin B1, 15 gr of calcium, 500 mg of Vitamin C. If you add 100 mg of old-time nicotinic acid (not niacinamide) and take it daily it becomes “Dianazene” for radiation prevention. Don’t include nicotinic acid in the formula with Vitamin E unless you are trying to get rid of radiation or radiation sickness. The nicotinic acid is not necessary to smoother processing and will not assist it. 100 mg of Vitamin B1 lasts for only 47 minutes so far as processing is concerned. But it helps in general tone. Vitamin E does not have a quick reaction so far as processing is concerned, one merely takes it and as the days go by processing is easier to do. It doesn’t wear out in a session, but you have to keep on taking it daily. 600 mg is the minimum. There is no maximum but some heart cases take up to 1,250. Shutes in treatment of disease recommend 400-600 mg per day for the average sized woman and 600-800 mg per day for the average sized male.

It doesn’t seem to matter to processing whether the Vitamin E is “Alpha Tocopherol”, synthetic or what. Just any Vitamin E apparently works.
Vitamin E assists a great many ills including diabetes and may have some effect on many others.

It, even with “Guk”, will not by itself release or clear anyone. When dosage is discontinued what it “cured” might relapse. But while it is being taken one feels fine and there’s no reason to stop taking it.

To get the best results one should probably take 600 mg and a Guk bomb each day, preferably after eating.

One person in a million is said to get an adverse “side effect” from taking Vitamin E but it is not fatal and this may not even be true. The “side effect” is said to be temporarily raised blood pressure.

If anyone makes this up into a single tablet be sure that the tablet is not pressed so hard that it won’t dissolve easily in the stomach.

Dianazene (for radiation) fails utterly when all ingredients are pressed together into one tablet.

Vitamin E is generally available but sometimes has to be specially ordered. It is useless to buy it in less than 100 mg tablets. Preferably 200 mg tablets of it should be bought. However it is bought, just be sure there’s enough of it (300 to 600 mg). Small quantities don’t produce any effect at all, which is why the medicos earlier missed its value.

Anyone’s auditing can benefit from it but at Levels VI and VII it becomes quite vital.

Oxygen causes the body to attract mental image pictures less. Carbon dioxide pulls mental images hard in on the body.

Vitamin E, oxygenating the body, acts mentally like taking oxygen. The body can go longer on less oxygen and becomes less exhausted when taking Vitamin E in sufficient quantity.

The body is of course a carbon-oxygen engine running at a temperature of 98.6 degrees F. There is possibly less oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere than there was and the body runs better when it can better utilize what oxygen there is. Vitamin E assists it to do this and so it doesn’t pull in mental masses. At least that’s the theory I’ve been able to work out to account for the observed increase in E-Meter action in the preclear who is daily taking sufficient Vitamin E. When the vitamin is no longer administered, in about 24 hours the preclear begins to run less easily (same as before Vitamin E plus any auditing gain) and the needle read size returns to what it was before Vitamin E was used. When Vitamin E is again daily administered, in two days, meter behavior improves again.

I have not had time to do many series but the observational data is so marked that it’s like proving stones are solid. One doesn’t feel like repeating the experiment endlessly—it is so obvious.

A mental subject addressed reads longer (more reads) in the presence of Vitamin E than in its absence but clears more thoroughly, leaving less mental mass.

I only insist that persons in England on the Level VI and VII Courses should use Vitamin E and that Saint Hill preclears for Grade V be put on it and only forbid pcs to be processed without it in high altitude Johannesburg.

The cost of it is the pc’s. No org is to supply it. Webber Pharmaceuticals, Ltd can probably direct one to better supplies or brands of it.

We are not in the Vitamin business or even in the health business. Anyone else using it in processing does so at his or her own choice. This HCO B is a release of scientific data.

Vitamins are food. They are not drugs. Processing under drugs is very bad. Some vitamins, however, help. And Vitamin E is a wonder.

								L. RON HUBBARD

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

SCIENTOLOGY: A NEW SLANT ON LIFE
by L. Ron Hubbard

Published
December 1965

Scientology: A New Slant on Life has been a steady best seller since it was first published at Saint Hill Manor. Here are twenty-eight of the best-loved essays written by L. Ron Hubbard between 1950 and 1959. Some were originally magazine articles, some were lectures, and some are favorite chapters from some of his books.

This is an excellent book for newcomers, for advanced Scientologists—for just anybody.

There is a wide range of subjects, as, for instance:

	Two Rules for Happy Living	On Human Character
	What Is Knowledge?	Playing the Game
	How to Live with Children	Freedom versus Entrapment
	On Marriage	Justice
	The Man Who Succeeds	The Vocabularies of Science
	Accent on Ability	How to Study a Science
	Honest People Have Rights, Too	The Human Mind
	On Bringing Order	Communication

Each one is food for thought and observation—an uncommonly pleasant way to attain new understandings.

160 pages, hardcover with dust jacket. Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JANUARY 1966
Review Auditors
Level III Students
DANGER CONDITIONS
TECHNICAL DATA FOR REVIEW AUDITORS

To cure a disagreement one can:

1. 	Locate disagreements on certain subjects by listing a question such as “On ......what do you disagree with?” and locating the item with assessment and blowing it by inspection (itsa).

2. 	Locate former similar subjects the person disagreed with.

3. 	Locate things on the subject the person has not understood and get them clarified.

4. 	Locate earlier similar subjects the person has not understood and get them clarified.

IMPORTANT—if a person’s attitude does not change after doing one of the above, do another or find another item using same process (listed above) as before.

A whole case will fall apart this way.

Compulsive by-passing can be handled by:

1. 	Doing disagreements as above.

2. 	Doing misunderstoods as above.

3. 	Finding persons similar to the person being by-passed, using standard listing and assessing as in all these.

4. 	Flattening a question “Who shouldn’t be ignored?” (Don’t run “Who has by-passed you?” or “Who should be ignored?” as these are out-of-ARC processes.)

Ordinary Comm processes also help of course and a good Grade 0 release helps. Higher Release Grades help. And Clearing, naturally takes care of the lot of course.

There is direct co-ordination between the state of a case (state of meter also) and the ability to follow a command line. The worse off the case (or meter) the less the person can follow a comm line. A person with a very high or very low TA and/or a stuck needle or an ARC Broke needle (floats but never responds and lots of bad indicators) should not only never be an executive but also will raise havoc in an org.

It is a standard review action in an org to handle such cases sent to Review by reason of having been part of Danger Condition assignments. In such cases, aside from usual Review actions, the above should be done.

LRH:ml.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 21 JANUARY 1966

Remimeo
SEARCH AND DISCOVERY
(ETHICS TYPE CASES, PTSs)
S & D ERRORS
(Handling PTSs with S & D)

When you have a failed Search and Discovery, the following are incorrect or have been omitted:

1. 	Incorrect item (errors in listing or assessment, over or under listing, bad metering, poor question).

2. 	Person has not actually been made to disconnect from the SP by declaration in writing.

3. 	It was really an ARC Break, not an SP and ARC Breaks should have been looked for instead of SPs.

4. 	The SP found was refused by the Auditor or Ethics.

The golden rule of S & D also applies—if it isn’t the correct person or group that was “found” the good indicators won’t come in.

So any incorrectly done S & D (as above) will not result in a pc bright-eyed and bushy tailed. All S & Ds correctly done on a pc that is PTS result in remarkable recoveries magical to see. So don’t blame S & D if it “fails”. Blame the lack of skill in using it and the person who ordered it or did it should be retrained.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JANUARY 1966
Remimeo
Tech Hats
Qual Hats	(Edited from a taped Conference with
All students Level	Saint Hill Tech and Qual Personnel
	—20 Dec 1965)

LEVEL IV

SEARCH AND DISCOVERY DATA
HOW A SUPPRESSIVE BECOMES ONE

Search and Discovery is being made and auditors are finding on one person and another “Myself”. Well, just amongst us girls, of course, you are going to find it. One of the best reasons you are going to find it is that it is part of the R6 bank. The other reason you are going to find it is that after a person is totally overwhelmed by a Suppressive he assumes the valence of the Suppressive. And a person you would find that on has actually been pretty suppressive.

What you’re doing is, you are pushing S & D to a point where you are clearing suppression. It wasn’t intended to go that far.

If you were to ask the listing question however, “Name ‘Myself’” or “Give ‘Myself’ a name”, you would then get the Suppressive.

But this is getting very adventurous, because it is part of the R6 bank. It is getting very adventurous to do anything about it. We seem to be happy about having “Myself”. I would just let them go right on being happy about it. With skill you probably could bring out the identity of this person whose valence had come over them. It would all depend on the auditor who is doing it. If I were doing it, I’d go ahead and break it down. But not a Class III auditor who is not sure what he is going up against, who is repeating the word several times, repeating the question, trying to check it to make sure the listing question is clean. Don’t you see, you are never going to get that listing question clean. That I assure you. That question can’t be listed out.

That is the mechanism of suppression overwhelming a person. Oddly enough you will only find it on persons who are suppressive and of course you’ve walked into the real mechanism of how does a Suppressive become a Suppressive? He becomes a Suppressive by taking over the valence of a Suppressive.

Then when you list it out you get “Myself” and this is compounded by the fact that it’s part of the R6 bank so you don’t dare do much with it but it will let a bunch of steam off the case.

With some very, very, very, very upstage auditing, very careful indeed, give them the auditing question once, then say, “Go on and answer the question” but never repeat it, never check the thing to find out if it’s a clean list—you probably would get at least one recent SP out of that combination. How we do that at that stage when I’ve not worked with it technically I would not be able to tell you, but I just know that it would be very risky. It makes me feel like maybe I shouldn’t do anything about it at all because it’s too risky, but I can see somebody getting messed up.

THE MAIN TROUBLE IN S & D
Your main trouble in S & D is much worse than that—it is simply an inability to assess. And auditors since time immemorial have had trouble assessing. They have two troubles in assessing. They underlist and they overlist. It’s almost an accident that an auditor ever lists the right lists the right way. I’m not saying that sarcastically but it has been my experience in teaching auditors to assess that they have two faults, they underlist and they overlist.

If they do either one of these things, they are going to ARC Break the pc and then the list isn’t going to be nullable because the pc is not responding to the auditor’s voice as well, and it quite often was the first one on the list which is where they never looked. More fundamental than that is simply the problem of reading an E-Meter. Those technical facts are in the road of S & D.

ASSESSING AN S & D

Actually an auditor who can assess can pass off an S & D so fast it would be like dealing cards done by a Monte Carlo Vingt-et-Un player; he could just roll them off left, right and centre. There’s no real trouble in it. It’s a very fast action. It all depends on how much you want to keep the pc under tension in the action, because an assessment isn’t auditing to begin with.

You would start Session with, “Sit down, I’m going to assess you now. Do you have some answers to this question. Brr. Brr. Brr.” And the pc says, “I want to tell you about ....” “All right, good, I’m glad you’re going to tell me about that but right now I want some answers to this question.” See? Then “brrrrr” on down and then you’ll notice your needle relax. Then you say, “All right, now I’m going through this list.” Ratatat, etc. “That’s it, all right. Thanks very much.” Pc cognites 10 minutes. Pc cognites and the Meter blows up and good indicators come in, and you’ve done an S & D. There is nothing more complicated than that.

You’ve got auditors who were trying to do an S & D in a session. You got them that are afraid the pc has already given it on the list. You got them that haven’t learned how the Meter reacts when you’ve got a complete list. (A Meter just falls flat when you’ve got a complete list. The needle goes clean.) And you’ve got them that aren’t sure that they’ve got any SP, and they just didn’t see that the Meter did a surge on one of them. Then you get somebody who has overlisted and he’s just ploughed the guy in, so he can’t assess it back easily.

Then you get the fellow who had four of them fall. Certainly if you’ve got four falling there’s two things that can be wrong at this point which makes it very difficult to run back. In one you have passed it. It’s above the four which are falling. You’ve missed it, and the pc is simply discharging on it. And actually you can ask the pc which one was it and he’ll say, “Well, it was Joe, of course.” That’s above the four. Practically every one after the right one will read, because it’s actually blowing down all the time. He’s no longer paying any attention to the auditor.

Then the other thing is you just haven’t completed the list.

You have to make an opinion as to whether or not you’ve overlisted or underlisted. You can also pick up a dirty needle and an ARC Broken pc or protesty pc if you’ve gone by the right one.

Here are the evils of listing, and here are the evils of assessment showing up on S & D. They are simply auditor goofs—it’s just lack of experience on the part of the auditor and lack of understanding of what he’s supposed to be doing. But an auditor who can really assess can knock these things off. I’d spot what auditors can assess reliably, and I’d give them specialized jobs of that character that require listing. This is a very, very highly skilled action. You save a lot of time by pulling such an auditor back into specialty.

REVIEW ACTION
In Review you have to do it sometimes when it’s been done. So you have the additional answer of “How do you patch up an assessment that’s already been goofed?” And “Where is the list that was lost?” You’ve got the problem of the list that was completed out of session. “And I got home and was lying in bed . . .” and so forth. So in Review you always assume the pc continued the list after the session. If the pc is there as a flat ball bearing, you just automatically assume the pc thought of it afterwards or something. It isn’t that the Tech auditor always got it.

I’ll give you a tip in Qual. If you assume automatically that standard technology has not been applied, as your first gambit, in anybody that you’re putting back together again, you’ll about 99% be right. Somehow or other it slipped by in Tech. It slipped by. Somebody thought he did it. Somebody thought it was on the report. And therefore it looked like it didn’t work or something. Something was there. And in all of my D of Ping I have not found it possible to detect all departures from tech by auditors. I’ve never been able to bat 1000 on that. Naturally, it’s nearly impossible.

Technically, what you have to do doesn’t mean that you have to invent technology because there are very standard answers to all these things.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ml.rd 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CERTAINTY

Vol. 13 No. 2				[February, 1966]

Official Periodical of
SCIENTOLOGY
in the
British Isles

Psychotics

L. Ron Hubbard

In a footnote early in the book DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH I promised to publish material someday on the subject of institutional psychosis.

Recently I was fortunate enough to make a breakthrough on this subject. I had supposed that it would be necessary to undertake a considerable amount of research work in institutions to complete that which I began so many years ago. Researching recently on the reasons cases worsen after they become better, the answer tumbled out all unexpectedly and shed an entirely new light on the whole subject of insanity.

We are confronted in our modern society with a growing statistic for insanity. The number of psychotics is increasing, apparently, faster than the population growth. This could mean many things. It could mean that the psychiatrist was inept in applying what he knew, it could mean that there were insufficient numbers of psychiatrists, as they state, or it could mean, as they tell the legislators, that insufficient funds are being appropriated for the handling of psychosis. But the answer is apparently none of these.

If one wished to halt an epidemic it would be necessary to isolate the germ or virus which was causing it. This has become accepted procedure in the field of public health and is intensely effective. However, scientific methodology has never really been applied to the field of psychosis. It is such a frantic and desperate field that anyone associated with it has little time for careful consideration. The patients are in such dangerous condition, their families and friends are so desperate, that no-one could be expected to look for the actual cause of the situation. Thus the true facts concerning psychosis have been masked.

If you want to know why people are having trouble with something it is a good thing to look at the something. There you will find that things have not been defined. There is no true, acceptable definition of psychosis. The root word “PSYCH” refers only to a being or soul and the “OSIS” could loosely be defined as “the condition of”. Therefore, in actual fact, it is not much of a word and if we look it up in the larger dictionaries we will find some long, complex dissertation or a sweeping generality which, frankly, would never be accepted in the physical sciences as a definition for anything, reflecting as it does wholly opinion. The word “psychosis” is not, however, completely inept as it at least indicates that it is something about a spirit or soul or its quality of animation.

Thus we can suspect, if the thing has never adequately been defined, that a great many misconceptions exist concerning it and furthermore, it would seem pretty obvious that if man had not defined what it was then he was very far from being able to identify the source of it.
We all have some idea of what we mean when we say “insane” or “crazy” or “nutty” but half the time we only mean that we don’t agree with the action. Things which are unreasonable to us or not understood we commonly refer to as “insane” or “crazy” or “nutty”. Thus man does not make a differentiation between what he disagrees with and an actual deteriorated mental state dangerous to the society and the individual.

So the first thing we can know about Psychosis is that it is becoming more widespread for two reasons:

1. 	Man has not adequately or workably defined it, and

2. 	The true source of it has not been identified.

There follows, naturally, a third fact that it has not been cured, quite obviously, because it is getting worse.

The whole subject has been so wrapped up in untested opinion that the ordinary scientist has found it quite unapproachable. The whole field bristles with authoritarian differences of view and bitter arguments.

The number of types of “psychoses” which have been listed over the years have become so great that classification has become relatively meaningless. Further, the names given mean different things to different schools of psychiatry.

Examining this sea of turmoil, human misery, mistreatment and failure, one would not ordinarily expect to find any ready solution. If one intended to find a solution, one could have expected to search for some years amongst the institutional population observing and taking notes until at last one had identified some common denominator of the illness which might lead to relief.

The orderly mind of a research scientist would, however, begin to take the problem itself apart on the basis of excluding those things which had not led to a ready solution, and the fact I am about to give you here should have been realized a long time ago.

Psychosis has not been solved because it has been studied in the wrong place. This is the first observation which might lead to a resolution of the problem. The source of psychosis is rarely to be found in the artificial atmosphere of an institution, therefore the problem was not earlier solved. After all, it didn’t occur in the institution. The person was sent there after it occurred. So the source of psychosis is obviously outside institutions. Further, a psychotic patient is seldom able to discuss accurately his life outside, so the institution would only give one evidence on the results of the source of psychosis; the source would be elsewhere.

The true psychotic is not always found in an institution. Behind those grey walls you mainly discover his victims. The true psychotic is one who causes hysteria, apathy, misconceptions and the reactions of stress in others. That is the identity of the being that is the source of psychosis.

He is, by and large, rather unconfrontable as a being, talking in the widest generalities, and sounds quite sane unless you listen to him closely. Then it will be found that the reasons he gives do not quite make sense, but are all directed toward the necessity of smashing or brutalizing anyone and everyone or selected groups, or material objects.

The actual psychotic is covertly or overtly destructive of anything the rest of us consider good or decent or worthwhile.

Sometimes such a being is “successful” in life, but the end result of his activities are what you would expect—total smash. Some notable examples were Hitler and Napoleon. Not even historians are quite brave enough to state that these two beings were totally, completely and incomprehensibly separated from reality and acted without good cause, reason or justification other than an obsession to destroy, ruin and bring misery to millions.

How Napoleon, for instance, justified beginning an attack on Russia too late in the year for his troops to operate there at all is very hard to see. Why Hitler had to destroy the Jewish people in Germany as a “necessary act in prosecuting his war against the world outside of Germany” has no other answer other than madness.

The true psychotic brings about an hysterical, apathetic, or deranged mental condition in others. He or she does it for “many good reasons”, does it for no reason at all, or doesn’t even notice that he is doing it.

The true psychotic worships destruction and abhors reasonable, decent or helpful actions.

Although history affords us innumerable examples, they are so common in the society around us that one does not have to go into a study of mass murderers to find them. The phenomenon is by no means rare and at the absolute minimum is 2l/2% of the population.

This individual fills the institutions with victims, the hospitals with the sick and the graveyards with the dead. The statistics of psychosis are not going to lessen in the society until this type of personality is completely isolated and understood.

The first problem one confronts in identifying the true psychotic is that anyone detecting in himself, or herself, some destructive urge is likely to believe that he or she is psychotic. This is definitely not the case. One of the primary characteristics of the true psychotic is a total lack of introspection, a total irresponsibility to the pain or suffering of others, coupled with a logic which explains it all away but uses reasons which are not sensible to any of the rest of us.

An actual psychotic never for a moment suspects his madness. You and I have often wondered about our own sanity, particularly since nobody could define it, but a psychotic never does.

Further, he would not help his fellow man if his own life depended upon it—he would rather perish.

This being is difficult to spot because he does not, ordinarily, fling himself about and make scenes. He is often entirely emotionless, completely cold-blooded and apparently perfectly controlled. The control, however, is only apparent, as this being is in the grip of a force far more powerful than himself and is a thoroughly controlled being. He or she must destroy and must not help or assist in any way. Such a case is almost impossible to treat even when identified. They do not easily respond to therapy since their level of responsibility is too low to experience even hope or despair about themselves. Thus they never assist anyone seeking to help them, and indeed are far more likely to turn on any benefactor than to permit assistance by them.

Therefore, under the subject of psychosis, we have the actual psychotic and the victims of the psychotic. As long as we only studied the symptoms of the victims we could not discover the source of their difficulty.

Any theory is only as good as it can be proven or as it works. Theories are not good because they are appealing or because they are uttered by a famous name, but are only good if they are useful. The question is—do they lead to a resolution of the problem?

Therefore, does the theory that the psychotic is ordinarily not in the institution and that the institution contains mainly his victims open the door to a solution of psychosis?

One could be charged with “oversimplification”, or “total ignorance of the subject”, or “lack of experience”, but none of this would alter the fact that a solution which worked was the true solution to the problem.

I never promised to resolve the whole field of psychosis. I was only interested in institutional psychosis, for I do not think that an actual psychotic, by the above definitions, is likely to be salvaged even if one were able to apply the solution to his case.

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

There are several reasons for this. The first and foremost is that he wouldn’t sit still or stand still long enough. Another is that he isn’t likely to be caught very easily and the third and most powerful is that he usually cannot be persuaded to forego his destructive actions long enough to receive any benefit from treatment.

Another reason is that when people are able to identify him, they do not wish to help him.

With those reservations the actual psychotic probably could be handled so far as technical actions are concerned, but these need to be applied before they can hope to work and the application of them in this particular case is prevented by nearly insurmountable difficulties of non-cooperation, disdain, contempt and a total lack of desire on the part of the actual psychotic to salvage himself.

Last and not least, any true psychotic can be counted upon to attack or attempt to destroy Scientology groups or activities as these help people. The source of such attacks traces back usually to pretty dangerous psychotics who aren’t in institutions or even suspected, some in public places where not only Scientology groups suffer from their actions. Thus it isn’t likely that Scientologists will do much to help cure them even if Scientology was in the business, which it is not.

It is easy to handle a large number of those persons who are the victims of actual psychotics. These are found in a majority in institutions as well as other places. Once again one has the problem of accessibility and communication but with those limitations institutional psychotics can be helped.

As I have said, the proof of any theory is its workability and it will take a considerable number of case histories to display the success of the observations. But if a person were sick from a certain germ and one knew what that germ was and one killed that germ and then that person became well, one would have to conclude that he had located the source of the illness.

The total indicated therapy cure for an institutional psychotic who is, after all, only the victim of an actual psychotic is to locate the actual psychotic in that person’s life. There is a very magic response to this action. The technology now exists. It is called “Search and Discovery”.

It is commonly observed that whole families will exhibit psychotic tendencies. This is too great a generality. In such a case it should be stated “the whole family except one” exhibit very obvious traces of insanity. The actual psychotic is most probably that one. This person is continually performing acts, often hidden, atrocious in nature, which destroy the confidence and reality of those about him. The others exhibit the hysteria or apathy commonly associated with the illness Psychosis. They never once locate, until it is done for them, the actual source of their obsessions and confusions.

Whether or not a victim exhibits one or another symptom depends largely upon what has been done to the person. To catalogue these is not easy and indeed is not helpful. In each of the cases it is only necessary to find the source of menace (an actual psychotic) which has made them as they are.

I have not tried to give you this as a learned paper. It is rather a discussion of a subject into which man has made almost no inroad. Today a Class III Auditor could expect some success in the field of Institutional Psychosis providing they were well trained, and we permitted him to practice in that field.

Today in institutions the treatment of the psychotic differs from that administered in Bedlam centuries past in that today they have cleaner beds. Otherwise there is no real change. Instead of whips, they use electricity; instead of chains they use brain surgery to incapacitate the person.

A great deal could be done in the field of Institutional Psychosis and being able to isolate the germ in the society which causes Psychosis is only a small step in the direction of lessening the degree of psychosis in the society but it is at least a step in a definite direction.

And if this leaves you wondering whether or not you are insane, all you have to do is ask yourself the questions:

1. 	Have I ever helped anybody or wanted to?

2. 	Am I violently opposed to those who help others?

If you can answer “Yes” to 1 and “No” to 2 there is no slightest doubt about your sanity. You are quite sane and those times in your life when you have wondered about your own wits you were only in connection with an actual psychotic somewhere in your environment.

The actual psychotic sometimes climbs to high places in the society, as witness Napoleon and Hitler. But even so he can be identified. Those who advocate violent measures as the only means of solving problems—such as advocating war—those who are violently opposed to organizations which help others are easily identified.

And in the smaller world when you see a cold, indifferent smile to the agony of another, you have seen an actual psychotic.

We do not consider psychosis a field of practice in Scientology and Scientology was not researched or designed as a cure for psychosis or “substitute for psychiatry”. But in the course of research, I have discovered these things and found them to be workable. I trust they may be of some use to you who, who knows, may someday become involved with an actual psychotic or his victim and need the data.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 FEBRUARY 1966

Remimeo
Tech Div Hats
HGC Auditors
Qual Div Staff	Level III
Franchise

S AND D WARNING

Search and Discovery, done incorrectly (incorrect SP found) can make a preclear ill within a week or two after.

Assessment is a very proper skill. There is a great deal written on it and many tapes.

The common errors of assessment (aside from the usual Gross Auditing Errors) are:

1. 	Too short a list

2. 	Too long a list

3. 	Clumsy or improper meter handling

4. 	List getting suppressed

5. 	Item getting invalidated

6. 	Pc being allowed too much Itsa

7. 	Pc getting ARC Broken by under or over-listing

8. 	Auditor not letting the pc have his item

9. 	Whole list going live because the item was by-passed earlier on the list

10. 	Auditor not looking for good and bad indicators to see if he was correct in his assessment.

When the right SP is found the good indicators flood in and the pc does not cave in in 36 to 72 hours.

The bug in S & D is that one can almost get the right item. An item can be found that is nearly the right one. If the nearly right one is accepted the pc will be doubtfully more cheerful and may insist this is it. The pc however is still not quite sure. Inevitably that is the sign of a nearly right item.

The real reaction to the correct person is an “Of Course!” no doubt about it reaction.

It is the action of nearly finding the right one that may make the pc ill in the next few days or a week. One has restimulated the by-passed charge of the right one without finding it.

Remember that the real Suppressive Person (SP) was the one that wove a dangerous environment around the pc. To find that person is to open up the pc’s present time perception or space. It’s like pulling a wrapping of wool off the pc.
The SP persuaded or caused the pc to believe the environment was dangerous and that it was always dangerous and so made the pc pull in and occupy less space and reach less.

When the SP is really located and indicated the pc feels this impulse not to reach diminish and so his space opens up.

The difference between a safe environment and a dangerous environment is only that a person is willing to reach and expand in a safe environment and reaches less and contracts in a dangerous environment.

An SP wants the other person to reach less. Sometimes this is done by forcing the person to reach into danger and get hurt so that the person will thereafter reach less.

The SP wants smaller, less powerful beings. The SP thinks that if another became powerful that one would attack the SP.

The SP is totally insecure and is battling constantly in covert ways to make others less powerful and less able.

Scientology flies into the teeth of an SP. One will go to the most extraordinary lengths to try to injure Scientologists or an organization or a staff member.

But SPs existed long before Scientology and finding the basic SP around the pc just because of Scientology or the pc is a Scientologist is in actual fact unlikely.

Childhood is the most fertile area in which to locate the SP on the case. A child is weak and at the mercy of adults. It is this fact alone that gave all the cures Freud ever stumbled onto. The analyst accidentally located an SP when his work was successful. But then he proceeded to overrun and restimulate the patient without erasing. In other words he would not let the patient have his item. An hour with a meter in the hands of an expert auditor who can assess correctly will produce everything the analyst or Freud ever hoped to achieve and will do it invariably compared to the small results analysts did achieve.

But if you get one almost right, and not get the really correct SP, then you get the same phenomena that dogged the analyst-the pc gets better for a moment and collapses.

I am not saying you can permanently injure persons. The analyst techniques operated far more restimulatively than our S & D. They made the person talk about it for years!

But you can still give a pc a nasty cold if you miss on an S & D.

So don’t miss.

Do it correctly.

Find the correct SP.

It’s all correct if you assess by the book—complete list, not too long or too short. Correct item on the list. Good indicators then in. And no relapse for at least 2 weeks.

That’s how a real S & D is done.

LRH : ml.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 FEBRUARY 1966
Issue II
Remimeo
Franchise
LEVEL 0

“LETTING THE PC ITSA”
THE PROPERLY TRAINED AUDITOR

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

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

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

The word means “It is a ........”

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

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

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

It won’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. 	The auditor  asks the questions.

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

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

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

And that’s Itsa.

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

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

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

1.2.1.2.1.2. etc.
TECH SAVVY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. 	Remedy A, Book of Case Remedies.

2. 	Remedy B, Book of Case Remedies.

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

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

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

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

7. 	TRs 5 to 9.

8. 	Op Pro by Dup until FLAT.

9. 	A hard long study of the Meter.

10. 	The ARC triangle and other scales.

11. 	The Processes of Level 0.

12. 	Some wins.

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

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

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

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

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: ml.rd 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 FEBRUARY 1966
Remimeo

RELEASE GRADES
(Replaces HCO Bulletin of 30 Aug 1965,
“Release Stages”)

There are five grades of Release. When one of these is attained the next one up can be run.

A preclear who has attained a grade of Release may not be run further on the processes of that grade or below or he will go back into his Reactive Mind.

All Releases however can have their problems handled, their withholds pulled, their ARC Breaks repaired and any Release at any grade can be audited on the exact processes of Release Rehabilitation.

The states of Release differ in that one is more stable than another.

The Reactive Mind (known also as the R6 Bank) can only be audited out by someone who is trained up to Class VI. When the Reactive Mind is fully audited out (erased completely), one has a Clear.

When a Clear has been refamiliarized with his capabilities, you have an Operating Thetan (an OT).

A Release, then, is pulled OUT of his Reactive Mind.

A Clear has fully erased his Reactive Mind.

An Operating Thetan is one who is Cause over Matter, Energy, Space and Time and is not in a body.

The degree and relative permanence of being pulled out of the Reactive Mind determines the state of Release.

There are numerous things that can pull one back into the Reactive Mind.

These are (1) Locks (2) Secondaries (3) Engrams (4) The Whole Time Track.

LOCKS

By reducing locks as in Levels 0 to IV, we then remove the ability of locks to pull the being back into his R6 Bank.

Locks are mental image pictures of non-painful, but disturbing, experiences the person has experienced. They depend for their force on secondaries and engrams.

Thus, one who has had his locks reduced is a GRADE 0-IV RELEASE.

SECONDARIES AND ENGRAMS
When a being has had the secondaries and engrams reduced, he is far less likely to be pulled into the Reactive Mind than if he has just had their locks reduced.

Secondaries are mental image pictures containing misemotion (grief, anger, apathy, etc). They contain no pain. They are moments of shock and stress and depend for their force on underlying engrams.

Engrams are mental image pictures of pain and unconsciousness the person has experienced.

When these are reduced, one has a GRADE V RELEASE.

THE WHOLE TRACK

Bits and pieces of the whole track remain after the locks, secondaries and engrams are reduced. These bits inhibit the being from recovering knowledge.

The Whole Track is the moment to moment record of a person’s existence in this universe in picture and impression form.

When these bits are cleaned up a being is a GRADE VA RELEASE.

THE REACTIVE MIND

When the pc has taken the locks off the Reactive Mind itself, using R6EW, he attains GRADE VI RELEASE.

THE REACTIVE MIND

When the entire Reactive Mind has been erased and the person is again wholly himself, one could call it a GRADE VII RELEASE.

But that is really CLEAR.

OPERATING THETAN

When a being once more has recovered his full abilities and freedom, a state much higher than Man ever before envisioned is attained. This state is called OPERATING THETAN.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: ml.rd 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

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

The following errors were found:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO UPPER GRADE OF RELEASE MAY BE BEGUN NEWLY ON A PC UNTIL ALL LOWER GRADES ARE FULLY REHABBED TO FREE NEEDLE. THIS APPLIES TO ALL GRADES 0 TO VII.

Regarding (2)—Invalidation of what a free needle is—and thus running past all free needles, let it be noted that this is an Auditor’s Code Break—continuing a process that has ceased to produce change—and is therefore a crime. This was wrong too long to be allowed to go wrong again. Thus we get the policy:

AN AUDITOR WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE OVERRUN A FREE NEEDLE ON A PRECLEAR MUST BE GIVEN AN ETHICS CHIT; AND IF THE ACTION IS SEVERAL TIMES REPEATED, ETHICS MUST ORDER A FULL REVIEW OF THE AUDITOR’S CASE INCLUDING AN EYESIGHT TEST AND CONDUCT A THOROUGH ETHICS INVESTIGATION AND HEARING.
Note that a Mark V Meter run with too high a sensitivity does not give a marked change when a needle floats. Thus sensitivity must be reduced in ordinary running and  increased only to get in rudiments. Then a free needle becomes more visible. A Mark V cranked up to 128 sensitivity looks like a floating needle all the time at a casual glance on most pcs. Sensitivity 5 is ample.

Also, meters go out of 5,000 ohm calibration and don’t read on the M and F “Clear” reads and change of electrodes can change M and F “Clear” reads.

A free needle, if a process is overrun, vanishes with just one extra command so an auditor must be alert.

Please also note that this has been part of the Auditor’s Code for ages—running past a flat point of a process has been forbidden since the first formulations of the Auditor’s Code.

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

Regarding (3)—Rehabilitation by using other processes—the HCO Bs on rehabs are very explicit. To run another process would clobber the pc. Thus we get the policy:

REHABILITATIONS MUST BE DONE BY REHABILITATING THE PC ONLY ON THE PROCESS OVERRUN AND ONLY BY STANDARD HCO BS ON REHAB PROCEDURE.

Re (4)—Unusual solutions—we get the policy:

ANY AUDITOR ACCEPTING AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION WITHOUT FILING A JOB ENDANGERMENT CHIT OR FOUND USING AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION MUST BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND GIVEN AN ETHICS HEARING. FAILING TO REPORT AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION ADVISED OR USED IS ALSO SO HANDLED. AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION IS ONE EVOLVED TO REMEDY AN ABUSE OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGY.

On (5)—Statistic failing to recover after an SP is spotted in a department gives us the 2 policies:

WHENEVER AN SP IS DISCOVERED AND DECLARED IN AN ORGANIZATION ALL HIS ASSOCIATES IN THAT PORTION OF THE ORG MUST BE CHECKED OUT FOR OR GIVEN AN S & D.

And

WHEN AN SP IS DISCOVERED IN AN ORGANIZATION, IS DISMISSED OR REMOVED AND THE STATISTIC DOES NOT RECOVER, ANOTHER SP MUST BE LOOKED FOR.
--------------

It is noted that the general condition of the Completion Statistic of Dec 65 to Jan 66 could be attributed to the above gross errors.

It is now certain that (l) Rehabilitation of earlier grades, (2) Free Needle and (3) Rehabilitation by standard practice are primary targets in our technology for anyone seeking to mess it up and that unwitting tampering with these three things and lack of HCO Enforcement on them will reduce HGC statistics and prevent their recovery.

Of course one could also go mad in the opposite direction—( I ) rehabilitate earlier grades endlessly on a pc regardless of how many times a free needle had been obtained, (2) call any loosening up of a needle a free needle and (3) refuse to even 2-way comm with a pc under repair for overrun for fear it violates standard procedure for rehab.

The middle course is the correct course in this case. Relax and just be very sure the pc has been properly rehabbed to free needle on each grade up to the one one is going to start by demanding the awards of release that were granted and if these weren’t ever awarded, then do the rehabs necessary grade by grade. The only sticky  point in this is that if a pc had ever been run on a higher grade without rehab of a lower, one must rehab “from the top down” at times, tackling the highest overrun first, but nevertheless doing all of them that were by-passed eventually.

The way to recognize a free needle is watch for one. When it happens you will see one. Then you will never afterwards wonder. The free needles available on a case can all be swallowed up by a failure to rehab all grades ever by-passed or overrun. If no free needles show up on a case at all then partially rehab any grade available for rehab back and forth until one has one of them go free needle and then get a free needle on the remainder. Life can also be an overrun and a pc never audited will respond to a rehab of “something overdone”. This doesn’t mean the pc went release before Scientology—it means that purpose overrun then jams—rehab of life situations of overrun consists of hitting the purpose that was overrun and when this is hit, the pc goes release in PT and was not a release in the past. An example is an overrun located in 20 AD when the person, alert to Christianity, decided to be good, made it and then overran it for 1945 years. When the purpose was found (to be good) and dated and the overrun spotted the needle went free. Rough auditing, bad TRs, “letting the pc Itsa”, etc, can swallow up free needles. Also a totally ARC Broke meter that won’t read at all with bad indicators all over the place won’t record a read, looks sometimes like a floating needle, the difference being the pc has total bad indicators— sour, mean, sad, etc. A free needle occurs most often after a big cognition and the unskilled auditor looks at the pc who is being bright and interesting and just doesn’t see the needle float, asks more questions and overruns, and the free needle vanishes— when a pc is cogniting, look at the meter not the pc. And the instant the TA starts up and the needle goes sticky suspect an overrun and check.

As for doing something else rather than Standard Procedure for rehab, plain ignorance can cause it. The auditor’s desire to help the pc if unaccompanied by solid tech background leads to wild efforts, new processes and anything but cool standard procedure.

When the person checking out pcs is also the Case Supervisor, unusual solutions creep in. The most errors I’ve seen made by a Case Supervisor were made after he had seen the pc or talked with the auditor. Cases have to be run by report only and auditors have to be supervised and their sessions listened to by somebody else besides the Case Supervisor. Tech is Tech. There is such a thing as Standard Tech. Pc wild tales and hollow eyes and auditor hobbyhorses have to be kept off Case Supervisor lines. So there must be a person who checks out pcs and supervises auditors and their auditing performance but who never opens his or her face to suggest instructions about the pc and only writes down that the auditor is rough or the process is flat or the process is overrun. The Case Supervisor lives in an Ivory Tower. Sounds strange but unless it’s done that way, wild departures from Standard Rehab Procedure and from Standard Tech in general will occur. Hell, all psychiatry went down that drain—the desperate patient, the desperate measures. Squirrelling stems from the Case Supervisor being the auditor supervisor and the pc interviewer. Oil, water, being in two divisions, Commies and Fascists, dogs and cats, won’t mix. Neither will the personal contacter of auditors and pcs and the Case Supervisor ever successfully stay crossed. The individual practitioner breaks down only because he does both auditing and Case Supervision. Auditing is an organization action which is why today we have Field Staff Members and HGCs.

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

Additional notes of things discovered in the investigation of the plummeted statistic on Completions were:

1. 	Auditors rabbiting out of uncertainty and so stumbling past End Phenomena and floating needles.

2. 	Case Supervisor getting auditors to ask leading questions on Pr Pr 2—”Ask the pc if he is interested in Medical Practices.”

3. 	D of P: “Find out what the needle is floating on.”

4. 	Case Supervisor: Told auditor that a floating needle was not the End Phenomenon of a Process in which “the TA had to be run out”.

5. 	Lack of knowledge and understanding of the Technology and not knowing the difference between such things as Anaten, Secondaries and Engrams by Case Supervisor, D of P, and so confusing auditors.
---------------

Of course the one thing one can’t technically overcome is an SP keeping an area messed up. His case doesn’t improve because of his intentions and overts and fear of people getting better or being bigger than he. When an SP dominates an area, only Ethics actions can handle.

The primary indicator of the presence of an SP in an org is a plummeting statistic immediately after he starts handling a portion of it.

Indifferent leadership, even inaction, can’t drive a statistic down. Only active suppression can.

So watch the statistics and don’t get reasonable when they fall. Either outside the org suppression has been brought down on that portion of the org, making it PTS or there is an SP there. The final answer is what happened just before the statistic fell. If a new appointment was made and it fell, unappoint it fast. If nothing cures the down statistic find the SP or handle the PTS situation because one or the other is there.

Completions stayed down for 15 years. Then we found auditors never noticed free needles. Now for Heaven’s sakes, 15 years was enough. Don’t repeat the error!

It does work you know.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: ml.rd jh 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 FEBRUARY 1966
Remimeo
All Students
All Scn Staff
Franchise
FREE NEEDLES, HOW TO
GET THEM ON A PC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ml.rd 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 FEBRUARY 1966
Remimeo
Staff Auditors’ Hats
Tech Hats	THE “DANGEROUS AUDITOR”

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

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

These are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no compromise for knowing one’s business.

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

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

PC LEVEL O—IV

DEFINITION PROCESSES

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

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

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

AUDITING STYLE

Each level has its own basic auditing style.

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

ASSISTS

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

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

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

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

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

SECONDARY STYLES

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

REMEDIES

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

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

GUIDING STYLE

The essence of Guiding Style is:

1. 	Locate what’s awry with the pc.

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

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

GUIDING SECONDARY STYLE

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

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

2. 	Handling it with Itsa.

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

DEFINITIONS PROCESSING

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

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

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

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

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

REMEDY A PATTER

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

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

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

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

And that would be Remedy A.

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

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

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

REMEDY B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You see, we inherit some of the effects of the whole dullness of Man when we seek to open the prison door and say, “Look. Sunshine in the fields. Walk out.” Some, who need Remedy B say: “Oh no! The last time somebody scratched the wall that way

I got stupider.” Why say, “Hey. I’m not scratching the wall. I’m opening the gate”? Why bother. He can’t hear you. But he can hear Remedy B as an assist. That’s the channel to his comprehension.

UNDERSTANDING

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

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

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

The cycle of Mis-definition is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.ml.rd 
Copyright ©1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CERTAINTY

Vol. 13 No. 3				[March, 1966]

Official Periodical of
SCIENTOLOGY
in the
British Isles

What Is Greatness?

L. Ron Hubbard

The hardest task one can have is to continue to love one’s fellows despite all reasons he should not.

And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue.

For the one who can achieve this, there is abundant hope. For those who cannot, there is only sorrow, hatred and despair, and these are not the things of which greatness or sanity or happiness are made.

A primary trap is to succumb to invitations to hate. There are those who appoint one their executioners. Sometimes for the sake of the safety of others, it is necessary to act, but it is not necessary also to hate them.

To do one’s task without becoming furious at others who seek to prevent one is a mark of greatness—and sanity. And only then can one be happy.

Seeking to achieve any single desirable quality in life is a noble thing. The one most difficult and most necessary to achieve is to love one’s fellows despite all invitations to do otherwise.

If there is any saintly quality, it is not to forgive. “Forgiveness” is a much lower level action and is rather censorious.

True greatness merely refuses to change in the face of bad actions against one— and a truly great person loves his fellows because he understands them.

After all, they are all in the same trap. Some are oblivious of it, some have gone mad because of it, some act like those who betrayed them. But all, all are in the same trap—the generals, the street sweepers, the presidents, the insane. They act the way they do because they are all subject to the same cruel pressures of this universe.

Some of us are subject to those pressures and still go on doing our jobs. Others have long since succumbed and rave and torture and strut like the demented souls they are.

To re-save some of them is a dangerous undertaking. Were you to approach many ruling heads in the world and offer to set them free (as only a Scientologist can) they would go berserk, cry up their private police and generally cause unpleasantness. Indeed, one did—he was later assassinated by no desire of ours but because of the incompetence of his own fellows about him. He could have used Scientology. Instead, he promptly tried to shoot it down by ordering raids and various berserk actions on Scientology organizations. That he was then shot had nothing to do with us, but only demonstrated how incompetent and how mortal he really was.

As we become stronger, we can be completely openhanded with our help. Until we do, we can at least understand the one fact that greatness does not stem from savage wars or being known. It stems from being true to one’s own decency, from going on helping others whatever they do or think or say and despite all savage acts against one; to persevere without changing one’s basic attitude toward Man.

A fully trained Scientologist is in a far better position to understand than a partly trained one. For the Scientologist who really knows is able not only to retain confidence in himself and what he can do, but also can understand why others do what they do and so knowing, does not become baffled or dismayed by small defeats. To that degree, true greatness depends on total wisdom. They act as they do because they are what they are—trapped beings, crushed beneath an intolerable burden. And if they have gone mad for it and command the devastation of whole nations in errors of explanation, still one can understand why and can understand as well the extent of their madness. Why should one change and begin to hate just because others have lost themselves and their own destinies are too cruel for them to face.

Justice, mercy, forgiveness, all are unimportant beside the ability not to change because of provocation or demands to do so.

One must act, one must preserve order and decency, but one need not hate or seek vengeance.

It is true that beings are frail and commit wrongs. Man is basically good but can act badly.

He only acts badly when his acts done for order and the safety of others are done with hatred. Or when his disciplines are founded only upon safety for himself regardless of all others; or worse, when he acts only out of a taste for cruelty.

To preserve no order at all is an insane act. One need only look at the possessions and environment of the insane to realize this. The able keep good order.

When cruelty in the name of discipline dominates a race, that race has been taught to hate. And that race is doomed.

The real lesson is to learn to love.

He who would walk scatheless through his day must learn this.

Never use what is done to one as a basis for hatred. Never desire revenge.

It requires real strength to love Man. And to love him despite all invitations to do otherwise, all provocations and all reasons why one should not.

Happiness and strength endure only in the absence of hate. To hate alone is the road to disaster. To love is the road to strength. To love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. And may very well be the greatest secret in this universe. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 MARCH 1966

Exec Secs’ Hats	Exec—HCO—Tech—Qual
ES Comm Qual Hat	Ethics
HCO Sec Hat
Dir 1 & R Hat
Ethics Hat	U R G E N T
Tech & Qual Hats
LRH Comm Hat

HIGH CRIME
Effective 1 June 1966

In any instance of a heavily falling statistic in Tech or Qual or a chronically low statistic in Tech or Qual in an org or in any org which has chronically low statistics in all divisions:

The Ethics Officer must look for this policy violation which is the highest crime in Tech and Qual:

TOLERATING THE ABSENCE OF, OR NOT INSISTING UPON STAR-RATED CHECK OUTS ON ALL PROCESSES AND THEIR IMMEDIATE TECHNOLOGY AND ON RELEVANT POLICY LETTERS ON HGC INTERNES OR STAFF AUDITORS IN THE TECH DIV OR STAFF AUDITORS OR INTERNES IN THE QUAL DIV FOR THE LEVELS AND ACTIONS THEY WILL USE BEFORE PERMITTING THEM TO AUDIT ORG PCS AND ON SUPERVISORS IN TECH AND QUAL WHO INSTRUCT OR EXAMINE OR FAILING TO INSIST UPON THIS POLICY OR PREVENTING THIS POLICY FROM GOING INTO EFFECT OR MINIMIZING THE CHECK OUTS OR LISTS.

If an Ethics Officer or any person in HCO Dept 3 discovers this high crime to exist he must report it at once to the HCO Area Secretary.

The HCO Area Secretary must at once order a thorough investigation into any and all persons who might have instigated this high crime and report the matter to the HCO Exec Sec.

The HCO Exec Sec must then convene a Committee of Evidence with the persons

accused as interested parties and must locate amongst them the suppressive or suppressives by the “reasonableness” of their defence, state of case and other signs.

The Committee of Evidence must declare the located S.P. suppressive by HCO Ethics Order and dismiss.

If any Ethics Officer, Director of I & R or HCO Area Secretary fails to obtain co-operation by superiors in carrying out this Policy Letter quickly then he or she must inform the LRH Communicator.

The LRH Communicator must then cable full particulars to Worldwide.

The Worldwide AdCouncil must then carry out this policy letter expeditiously and at any cost.

If the HCO personnel making this discovery cannot obtain action in any other way he or she must go outside the org and cable LRH Comm WW and his actions and costs in so cabling will be reimbursed on claim to WW and his post will be fully protected.
If the AdCouncil WW suspects this policy not to be in full force in any org despite assurances an HCO WW personnel must be sent to that org to investigate and may be deputized to remove either or both Exec Secs of that org by Comm Ev on the spot or at WW.

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

It has been discovered that failure to check out, Star-Rated, the Tech and Qual HCO Bs applying to levels being audited or taught or examined and their processes and the data used in Review and relevant policy on those using the material in orgs results in a crashed Division 4 completion statistic, crashed income and low statistics throughout and a failing org and was the reason through 1965 for struggling orgs—the public would not pay more for service than it was worth to them and with this policy out, the service was not worth very much.

It has been found that a suppressive person will discourage this check out policy as one of his first actions.
------------

This policy applies whether an auditor has been trained or not with star-rated check outs. Staff and Review auditor and Supervisor are special technical status grades and one cannot consider this double training.
------------

“Star-Rated” means = 100 percent letter perfect in knowing and understanding, demonstrating and being able to repeat back the material with no comm lag.

Org Exec Sec Communicator for Qual WW is the final authority for any check sheets on this matter and is responsible for preparing and standardizing them from time to time. But the lack of a check sheet from ES Comm Qual WW does not set aside any provision or penalty of this policy letter.
------------

This policy letter is issued in the complete knowledge that the absence of this policy in full effect is the primary reason for orgs not growing and is based on actual experience.

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

The only higher crime I could think of would be to pretend to have an org but have no technical personnel on staff in Tech or Qual. That is suppressive also and will crash an org. Handle it similarly to the above.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 APRIL 1966

Remimeo
All Orgs	(Tech Div)
Exec Secs
Tech Sec
All Tech Hats	(The original issue of this HCO B contained a number of
All Qual Hats	typographical errors- Please replace your copy with this
	corrected issue. The original copies should be returned to
	the HCO Area Sec.)

DIANETIC AUDITING COURSE

The first requisite of any auditor trainee is to find and run secondaries and engrams on a preclear, preferably a fellow student, and to have secondaries and engrams run on self.

Due to the fantastic speed of results today it is not possible for a student to get enough auditing experience using the standard tech of 0 to VI.

To remedy this we use dolls for model session practice and learning the processes.

But even further training is needed, using live preclears.

The tech used is that of Book I, Dianetics. The Modern Science of Mental Health, but omitting the countdown and canceller, this not being necessary today and using instead a simple “Start of Session” and “End of Session” and then running the engram.

Do not try to use past track incidents. The preclear may eventually fall into these but try instead for current lifetime.

Try first for secondaries (moments of misemotion) particularly loss. Try to find these on a gradient, first trying for minor losses and eventually locating the death of a loved one.

Certain pcs (Black Vs they used to be called) are not able to run track incidents but try to coax them through incidents of loss on a gradient (small losses first) and then get on with it. They usually will get visio on incidents turned on if this is done.

There is a complete method of running engrams on anyone, developed by me about three years ago whereby the date is found then the duration of the incident. This always permits an incident to be run with visio.

Don’t try for sonic.

Get the pc to regress to the moment of the incident.

Don’t try to run them conceptually with the pc in present time.

Emphasize getting the pc to start at the beginning and go through to the end several times. Don’t be too keen on repeater technique to get phrases. They show up if you get the pc to run through the incident a few times.

When the pc can run secondaries successfully try for actual engrams.

Once again try for light incidents like a pinprick and graduate up to real engrams— moments of real pain and unconsciousness.

Most students shy off actual secondaries and engrams and try to run conceptual blah that could never have affected anyone’s life with the pc in PT. This alone is the cause for failure of case gain running secondaries and engrams.

Don’t try to pull withholds, etc, or handle present time problems but send the pc who ARC Breaks with the auditor (not with life) to Qual at once for an ARC Break assessment. DON’T CONTINUE TO AUDIT AN ARC BROKEN PC who has ARC Broken with an auditor.

All Ethics data applies—don’t audit a Potential Trouble Source. If you encounter an SP (no case gain no matter what you do) send to Ethics. Lack of Ethics facilities and Ethics know-how was the primary reason Dianetics occasionally didn’t work. So the new student has to be genned in on:

1. 	If pc starts chopping auditor send to Qual at once.

2. 	Suppressives.

3. 	Potential Trouble Sources.

4. 	The org pattern showing Tech Div and Qual.

E-Meters must be used and regardless of whether the student knows anything about them or not the pc “must be on the cans”. We don’t care if the student learns much or little about meters at this stage but a bright student will catch on fast. There is no E-Meter training at this stage.

The texts supplied the student are those which cover I to 4 above, Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health which he must buy or own and an E-Meter he must buy or borrow but may not be lent by the school.

There is real magic in running secondaries and engrams. I have seen the most fantastic recoveries from running merely a secondary (most spectacular recoveries with secondaries were obtained from running the death of an ally). I have seen severe physical ailments—heart disease, arthritis, malfunction, allergies, impotency, frigidity, lameness, etc, through the catalogue of human ills—vanish or reduce on properly running engrams to erasure. We are not in healing but we have a fantastic success with Dianetics in this activity.

No auditor will ever be worth very much unless he has come in the right way—through Dianetics. The concept of physical and mental difficulty stemming from a mental image picture was a great discovery and the technology of erasing such pictures as developed must not be lost in our trained Scientologists. This very instant I know of 3 cases with whom I am in daily contact whose whole lives would be changed by finding and running the incident necessary to solve the case. I have seen a woman who looked 60 appear 20 after 9 hours of auditing out a single secondary (the recent death of her husband).

When we originally tried to teach this technology (running of secondaries and engrams, 1950-1952) we had no Ethics, we were at that time already drowned with SPs. Auditors weren’t duplicating tech. They often couldn’t even state the basic definitions of “secondary” or “engram”. They steered the pc all over the track or let him wander like a lost soul. They tried to force the pc to run the auditor’s aberrations. And it was a jolly old mess ! But those few I taught personally and simply had, as any old-timer will tell you, the most fantastic successes with incredibly low effort by the auditor.
It’s just a picture, secondary or engram. The whole of the technique is just finding the incident the pc is “in”, running the pc through the incident, beginning to end, several times and not letting him digress and letting him come up the tone scale past boredom to enthusiasm by doing so. When I think of the millions of words I have had to speak or write just to get that terrible simplicity across, I see it can be bent as technology in a thousand thousand ways.

The student has today guides he never had in 1950-52. He has the Auditor’s Code, the actual responses of the E-Meter, Ethics and the final solution of how to turn on visio even in SPs as per three years ago.

The startling gains of the exact tech of 0-VII of course overawe the old plodder of 1950. But there is a sting here as far as training goes. No understanding of the mind is complete without a thorough grasp of secondaries and engrams and running them. I have seen a person trained up to a high level who suddenly flopped at V because he had no faintest notion of what he was auditing.

The budding psycho-analyst gets the shock of his life when he sees there IS SOMETHING THERE. Before us, people thought the brain had short circuits in it (psychologists and psychiatrists) or that a beast called a Censor lived in a dungeon in it (Freud), or that evil spirits haunted one (Christianity).

The whole answer to the mind is mental pictures and masses created by the thetan. There is no other source or cause of aberration. Unless a student knows this he will never make a good auditor and Scientologist. The only early way to get a reality on it is to audit secondaries and engrams and be audited through them. One does encounter all this phenomena by the time one is a Grade VII even though not audited on Dianetics. BUT students beginning their training are not Grade VII. And unless they have actually audited or been audited on secondaries and engrams they will never, even though Grade VII, really have a reality on why people act as they do or the complex nature of the bank.

Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health was written before whole track was known. It made releases like mad but they were then overrun like mad. It failed only on SPs and PTSs. It was and is the answer to psycho-somatic ills and human aberration.

My results with Dianetics were not often duplicated because:

1. 	I stopped when the ability of the pc on any one subject was regained.

2. 	I audited smoothly.

3. 	I didn’t use the subject to invalidate the pc (see Original Thesis on why auditing works).

Many auditors did duplicate my results and made “clears” which we now call releases due to total Clear being so much higher.

That we are today making a TOTAL Clear as well as Operating Thetans is completely out of comparison with what Dianetics was trying to do.

Scientology is the route from human being to total freedom and total beingness. Dianetics was the route from aberrated or aberrated and ill human to capable human. This step had never before been achieved in Man’s history.

Oddly, the step from human being to a spirit had been achieved, if rarely, but was not generally credited (Buddhism, other spiritual practices, even Christianity). Scientology really achieves it and for the first time with TOTAL stability, no relapse and invariably one for one. Nevertheless Man had an inkling of the goals of Scientology even though he considered them almost beyond God.
But Man had no inkling whatever of Dianetics. None. This was the bolt from the blue. Man was hacking and sawing and shocking and injecting and teaching and moralizing and counselling and hanging and jailing men with enthusiasm without any idea at all of what caused Man to behave as he did or what made him sick or well.

THE answer was and still is Dianetics.

As we can now go directly toward total freedom on a precise and narrow roadway without any IFs and as it can be done by a human being in about a year minimum time due to my discarding of all non-essentials, by developing the exact steps and techniques of administration, and as the result is so hugely startling grade to grade compared to anything anybody had ever even dreamed of and as the final result was never before known in this universe, we tend to turn up our noses at poor little old Dianetics.

But it was the grandpa, the ancestor, the basic discovery which led to and the reason for Scientology.

AND we have the gigantic problem amongst us that Scientology works too fast in an auditor’s hands and forbids him to overrun a result. Therefore HOW CAN HE EVER LEARN TO AUDIT? He can’t, running Scientology, as he’ll never get enough practice on live pcs.

Dianetics, however, has a virtue we never would have called one in 1950. It is slow. You can grind away on a secondary for hours. You can one by one whittle down a chain of related engrams for days, even weeks. You can audit a pc for a long, long time. And you can get auditing practice.

Now just one change—have the pc sit in a chair in Dianetic sessions. No reason to use a couch. Thus the auditor has the same set-up as in grade auditing. The same approach and patter he will use in his standard Scientology grade auditing MUST be used in this Dianetic auditing or the practice will not train one to do Scientology auditing. (Yes, I know the pcs will roll up in a ball or leap into the air, but this is a hazard of the trade! Put such a pc seated on the floor after one roll off from a chair.)

And one Supervisor caution: Tell such students to watch that tone arm for reading at clear read and watch the needle for a float and if they see the release phenomena occur to gently ease off the session without even one more command “to go on” or any other command. Unless you watch this you will overrun some pc on a release grade. (Also tell him what to do in case of a pc refusing to co-operate or chopping the auditor—send to Qual quick.)

Dianetics is easy to do.

1. 	You say, “Start of Session.”

2. 	You locate an incident (an actual past happening).

3. 	You tell the pc to GO to the beginning of it.

4. 	When the pc says he’s there the auditor tells the pc to go through it to the end and say what is happening as he goes along.

5. 	When the pc reaches the end of it, the auditor tells the pc to go to the beginning of the same incident.

6. 	When the pc has, the auditor tells him to GO through it (not “again”) and say what is happening.

7. 	Repeat 5 and 6. Repeat 5 and 6. Repeat 5 and 6.
8. 	When the pc is up to tone 4.0 (cheerful) on it, repeat 2.
9.	 On the new incident repeat 3 to 7.

10. 	When the new incident has come up to tone 4.0, repeat 2.

11. 	Repeat 3 to 7.

12. 	When the new incident has come up to tone 4.0, repeat 2.

13. 	At end of the body of the session tell the pc to spot the environment a few times.

14. 	End the session by saying, “End of Session.”

That’s Dianetic auditing.

Refined, one can handle “bouncers” or “denyers”, etc. But frankly, I found the pc would only reach to these when he was in over his head and the gradient of incident selected had not been followed. If you choose incidents IN THE PC’S CONSCIOUS RECALL not by flash answer or meter the refinements aren’t necessary. You just do 1 to 12.

The ORIGINAL version of Dianetic auditing was all done on a gradient. One searched nothing out by meters or trick questions or tests or flash answers. One got what the pc could comfortably face and audited it. If the auditing was smoothly done, the next incident was tougher but the pc was comfortable in facing it. In that way the incidents (secondaries or engrams) become progressively more horrifying but the pc is quite comfortable facing each one in turn. This is what is meant by “gradient”—it is a steepening or an increasing from the slight to the heavy. But you see the pc smoothly audited is gaining ability and confidence all the time and so can face more and more violence in his past. It’s all there in pictures. Blackness is either his unwillingness to face things or his basic bank. It cures (vanishes) if you do it by gradients. And the pc soon can see pictures very well.

Therefore IF your student is becoming a good auditor all you need to do is look at his pc. If the pc is more confident and cheerful, then the auditor is learning and doing well. If the pc isn’t, the auditor has a rough spot and should go to cramming. If this doesn’t work, training being good, then the auditor is probably an SP who has no idea of helping the pc at all but is using “auditing” to bust somebody up.

Dianetics is too easy, really, for the student to conceive that his minimum mild actions will produce such fabulous results. So the auditor feels called upon to add. Additives are what checked Dianetic results in the vast majority of cases that were checked.

The pc who wants to “psycho-analyze” (talk) by the hour isn’t getting audited and isn’t going to get any better. This pc simply isn’t under auditor control so the auditor’s control and TRs are at fault. (Pcs explain this sometimes by saying they’re “cogniting” whereas a cognition is rather quick, not an hour’s maundering.)

The pc has to be told what is expected of him. “We’re going to find an incident in your life of which you have an exact record. Then by sending you through it at the moment it happened several times we’re going to erase it. Just do what I tell you and all will be well. Do you have any questions about that?” That exact quote must be made to the pc who has not been Dianetically audited (which includes many Scientology pcs too) and the pc must understand it and be satisfied he does before locating and running incidents.

Very bad off pcs jump about on the “time track” and really need only grade auditing. Such pcs should be rejected for the purposes of this Dianetic auditing and sent to any Hubbard Guidance Centre.

Some pcs just won’t get the idea and just won’t run incidents. Simply reject for these purposes and send to the HGC.
Some pcs are so snarly and choppy even before meeting the auditor, they have to be sent to Qual and afterwards only to the HGC as they’re no good for this. They’ll make it, but are not easy enough to afford any training to a student.

Some pcs are simply Ethics cases (SPs and PTS) and these too should be rejected for this purpose. The PTS is known by “roller coastering” (Coney Island fast up and down quarter-mile of aerial railway). They slump. So they’re Ethics cases.

If a pc ARC Breaks suddenly or seems very sad after auditing it’s an ARC Break with the auditor and needs Qual attention—and the student auditor should be looked over very carefully as a possible Ethics case.
------------

Engrams are hard to run in a room full of auditing teams. So if possible one should assign the auditing to be done after class hours in their lodgings.

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

The way to fit this programme of Dianetic auditing into training in general must be worked out and is left to the Org Exec Sec WW who may from time to time issue, through the Org Executive Secretary’s Communicator for Tech, Sec Eds covering its arrangements and materials to study (check sheets). In the absence of such Sec Eds an Academy may make up its own. It is possible to make it a whole new course with an equivalent of the old Hubbard Dianetic Auditor certificate. And one recalls that a course not even vaguely as good as this one can be was the course on which all others have been based since 1954. The course outlined herein is a smoothed version of the course I personally taught in 1950 to thousands.

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

“Secondary” in its original use meant “a moment of loss” and incidents should be chosen on that basis.

A secondary derives all its power from an underlying engram (containing real pain and unconsciousness).

Therefore many, many secondaries (which bury engrams) must be taken off the case first and the job thoroughly done before engrams should be approached in auditing. Secondaries may again be approached when engrams seem to have been “all cleaned up”.

This alternation of:

1. 	Take off a lot of secondaries

2. 	Take off a lot of engrams—should be followed one after the other.

Past life incidents are handled just like any other secondaries and engrams. A “past life” and memory of it is buried under the terrific loss of possessions and body and natural recall can be restored by just general Dianetic auditing as given in this HCO B. No special attention is required.

Do not run prenatal or birth engrams unless they come up naturally. The pc must run only consciously recalled incidents. He need not recall the details consciously. Only that the incident happened.

The state of release attained by Dianetic auditing is probably below Grade 0 and should be regarded as such and is declared by Qual as “Dianetic Release”—no grade number being given.

THE MATERIAL IN THIS HCO B TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ANY DIANETIC MATERIAL, BOOKS OR TAPES INCLUDING DIANETICS THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH WHERE A CONFLICT MAY OR MAY SEEM TO EXIST.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
								Founder
LRH:lb-r.jd.rd
Copyright © 1966, 1967	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1966

Remimeo
Tech Div Hats
HGC Auditors
Qual Div Staff
S & D COMMANDS

WHAT PERSON OR GROUP HAS SUPPRESSED YOU?

The above is the listing question to be used when running an S & D.

Note: If you find a group on the list be sure to then do a represent list of that group.

Note: Do not do new lists where old lists exist. Use old lists.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :Ib-r.rd 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1966
Issue II
Remimeo 
Tech Div Hats 
HGC Auditors 
Qual Div Staff
S & D—THE MISSED ITEM

There are four points I want to get across to you.

1. 	ILLNESS = ONLY PTS

2. 	ONLY PTS = ILLNESS

3. 	ONLY A PTS CONDITION CAN MAKE A GRADE V (or any grade) SICK

4. 	A BAD S & D MAKES A PERSON SICK

Get it? GOOD!!

Now, if a person who has had an S & D gets sick, what do you know? You know that:

(a) 	They are a PTS
(b) 	The S & D was not properly done
(c) 	An item was missed

NOTE: The missed item may be on a list that was made 2 or 3 years ago.

On the HCO B 5th February 1966 “S & D WARNING”, I clearly stated that “It is the action of nearly finding the right one that may make the pc ill”. One has restimulated the charge of the RIGHT item, but, has found and okayed the WRONG item.

A bad S&D is DEADLY.

A bad S & D can cause a dangerous physical condition. A bad S & D can land a pc in hospital (I know of two such cases where it did).

So please! PLEASE!! get this, it is so very important. Always, repeat, ALWAYS look for the MISSED item on a priorly done list when the pc gets sick.

Know your S & D bulletins, know your listing and nulling bulletin—THOROUGHLY—and you won’t go wrong.

Let’s fix up roller coasters, not help keep them roller coasting.

IT’S VERY EASY.

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

6607C19 SHSpec-69 About Rhodesia

LRH has just come back from Rhodesia.  Around February, 1966, LRH was holding the mock-up [his body] together with sticking plaster.  The organization was going fine.  Tech was wrapped up.  LRH put things on “wait” -- his case, for one thing.  He decided to take a vacation.  He spent thirty days in Las Palmas.  The organization was running fine.  Clear No. 1 (John McMasters) was made during February of 1966, while LRH was in Las Palmas.  LRH decided to go to South Africa.  He wanted to locate an alternate base for OT’s, in case of war or political takeover.  He couldn’t figure out why he couldn’t do this.  [The reason was that he hadn’t defined the purpose of such a base.  The purpose was:

1.  An alternate base for scientology, in case of war or political takeover.

2.  To serve as a base from which to put in ethics on the planet, so tech could go in.

3.  To put in economics, so that people can support orgs and the orgs can flourish.  [See later part of this lecture.]

LRH went to Rhodesia.  He conceived of a type of constitution they could use to solve their difficulties.  The government liked it.  LRH recalled that he had some assets in South Africa.  He decided to invest them.  He bought a house and learned that he could buy a hotel in the wilderness for 5500 pounds, and did.  He bought a farm.  He was watching the economics and behavior of the Wog world and getting a kick out of being out there, making friends with tough characters (his usual friends).  Rhodesian culture is still Victorian.  It is a small civilization in the middle of a howling wilderness.  It is more sophisticated than London.

Rhodesia has lots of land, minerals, precious metals, and a beautiful climate.  It is untouched and could easily be developed.  LRH met the governmental high-ups.  He was very acceptable to them.  He didn’t discuss scientology at all.  He was examining the Wog world, and he didn’t want to un-wog it.  He went on TV and radio.  He had no authority, but he was solving lots of problems.  Each individual Rhodesian would agree with LRH’s solutions, but warned him that no other Rhodesian would agree with him, because the solutions were too advanced.

LRH went down to his hotel at Lake Kariba.  He supplied the hotel with two-ton trucks.  Local industry started to use his trucks to transport goods, and the area boomed.  LRH started a furniture factory.  A colony started to sprout.  Just the fact of LRH’s being interested in the country and seeing hope for it caused production to rise.

Then LRH wondered how he was going to leave, to go back to Saint Hill. He was woven too tightly into the picture, with a staff of nine personal staff and twenty-nine general staff, the pick of the ex-consular domestic staffs. White Rhodesians kept telling LRH how to handle the African.  He realized that they didn’t know anything about Africans, because they didn’t recognize that they were people.  They would say, “They are sullen.  You’ve got to watch them.”  But the reason they are sullen is no acknowledgment, bad 8C, over-expectation, and out-gradient.  They were taking people with no experiential background in politics or economics and expecting more of them than they were trained to do.  LRH made his staff happy by telling them that they weren’t Rhodesians anymore, that they were Americans.  They were very spit-and-polish, enthusiastic, and hard-working.  So in four months, LRH was very acceptable to both races and even to extreme moderates, as well as to extreme rightest whites.

A reporter from the London Daily Mail told the Minister of Information what a bad fellow LRH was.  The minister instantly told prime minister Smith what a bad fellow he was.  Smith told the cabinet the same story, and the next morning the Rhodesian Front Committee was charging down [to see LRH], when they found out that his visa wasn’t going to be extended, because they knew that it was all lies.  Smith had been built up as too fair and too honest. His popularity had begun to decline, because he hadn’t worked miracles, and because his communication was going out.  Then he told the Committee various things, such as, that LRH’s business associates were complaining about him.  LRH had, in fact, only three business associates, and one of them was there and denied the story.  Smith said that LRH had been deported from Australia.  But LRH’s passport had no record of having entered Australia.  He said that LRH was wanted all over and had a criminal record. These people, however, knew that LRH’s credit was in the stars all over the world.  They saw Smith’s feet of clay and walked out.  So LRH could leave, covered with laurels.

As a result of this expedition, LRH found out that you can’t locate a base that you don’t know the purpose of.  That was why he had trouble locating “OT Base”.  Now he knows what “OT Base” has to do.  It has to put in ethics on a planetary basis, so that tech can be gotten in.  As you associate with the public and try to tell them about scientology, you have trouble with the public, because their ethics are out, and for no other reason.  One SP in Rhodesia has wrecked the country, and is keeping the whole scene enturbulated.

The only real threat to scientology is that an atom war or a political takeover could prevent the organization from going ahead to clear people.  In addition to ethics, but less vital than ethics, economics has to be gotten straightened out.  Economics is a very simple subject, with very plain laws. It has nothing to do with politics and ideology.  Actually, economics exists as a subject, the purpose of which is to get people enough to eat, etc.  Man violates the laws of economics all the time for ideological and political purposes.  The already existing economic systems of the planet are usable in a modified form, and we need them to improve, in order to allow for an expansion of our organization.  There has to be a workable enough economics on the planet so that people can support orgs and the orgs can flourish and expand. A total subsidy of processing doesn’t work, because there is no contribution from the PC.  People have to contribute to benefit from auditing.  So the economic purpose is a secondary purpose of OT Base.  Also, ethics is hard to get in on starving people!

Ethics is out on earth, and the out ethics prevents easy dissemination. Nearly every human being on this planet that is in trouble, is in trouble because ethics are out.  In England, someone stole and sold LRH’s research papers, which were then represented as the current practice of scientology -- a very different thing.  People are killed in wars because of one SP in the government.  The only reason for war is a few SP’s.  We could go and sort out key SP’s in international situations.  What we would do about it is something else.

Political systems exist only to solve the problem of succession of rulers.  Otherwise, everyone could agree on a benevolent monarchy.  The answer is, of course, not to have successors.  Clear the monarch!  But political systems are not concerned with the happiness or productivity of people.

The only source of our individual, personal difficulties is not having ethics in, in the society around us.  The only reason why you are having difficulty as an individual is not having ethics in, in your immediate environment.  We’ve got to shift gears in our emphasis.  We have been getting ethics in on our fellow scientologists with great enthusiasm.  Now we are familiar with the system and how it works.  We have erred by getting ethics in too heavily on scientologists and too lightly on the environment.  It is time to reverse the emphasis.  “There isn’t any point in getting ethics in on a willing person,” just because he is stupid.  Doing that just makes the person sullen.  Ethics should be directed at willful acts of sabotage.

A real SP is not just anyone.  He intends to damage you.  He is a real nut.  He intends to knock you down.  He is not just a difficult person.  He is a real monster.  Upgrade your idea of what an SP is like.  SP’s amount only to 2.5% of Mankind.  Find out if the guy is driving people into sanitariums, strewing social wreckage about, and smashing statistics.  We have only had one real SP on staff.  Just because a person shows up on an S and D doesn’t mean that he is a real SP.  Maybe he is just making someone unhappy.  Don’t fling the title around lightly, within scientology.  Outside scientology, don’t worry about making a mistake and accusing someone wrongly.  Just get ethics in real hard first and correct the mistakes later.  We’ve got to put in ethics fast to prevent disaster.

It was great to find that the organization could continue without LRH. It was great to find that you could make more clears.  You made No. 22 to celebrate his return.

LRH’s immediate program is to finish his own clearing.  He has found that people don’t make it with their grades out.  Then he will start OT research. Every time he tries to put together the scope of OT, he has to run off the invalidation.  Any statement you can make about OT falls short of the truth. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JULY 1966

Remimeo

Required for
Level IV Students
TO REVIEW AUDITORS
TO ETHICS OFFICERS

THE TYPE TWO PTS

It has been revealed at Saint Hill that HGC auditors and Review auditors are permitting their preclears to be sent through to Ethics for writing disconnection letters to any person or group which the preclear thinks to have been suppressive of him and then continuing the Search and Discovery to find the SP on the list.

This is improper. The auditor should continue the proper auditing of an S and D until the proper item on the list is found.

An Ethics Officer should only accept from a Type Two PTS, the proper SP found upon the completion of an S and D properly listed and nulled to one SP.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6607C26 SHSpec-71 The Classification Chart and Auditing

Auditing means to listen and compute, and to get a result on a PC, who is a person with aberrations and difficulties.  Auditing has to be done in a professional, standard manner.  Since the beginning of Wogdom, there has been off-beat activity going on.  That is no reason to perpetuate it.  “The psychiatrist exists for the good of the society, and to Hell with the patient.”  Our situation does not compare with earlier mental therapies.  We are not even trying for the same result.  We are clearing people by erasing reactive minds.  Unlike psychotherapies, auditing is not a social criticism.

We know the answer to why the PC behaves the way he does.  We also know why the wog behaves the way he does.  Scientology is a road out that increases the person’s abilities, taking him out of his identification of A=A=A.  The road has milestones, which we call “grades”.  There are also levels.  On grades, there are certain abilities gained.  But these grades are not composed of single points, despite the names given on the Gradation Chart.  That is the rough public rendition.  It is really not possible to enter the upper grades without having attained the lower grades.  Trying to do so results in disasters.  The whole track falls between [Grade] V, which enables the PC to confront whole track, and [Grade] VI, but it doesn’t necessarily appear in either, though it may.

Besides the disasters that occur from an out gradient, other disasters come from not following standard tech.  Standard tech is contained only in HCOB’s, not in any books.  “If I haven’t signed it, it isn’t true.”  Some day we will publish then all in consecutive order, all corrected.  The main bugbear of someone studying scientology is that he conceives that every time he reads something new, it wipes out the old.  This concept is based on the fact that he didn’t understand the old material that he had read in the first place.  So he doesn’t realize that it can be integrated with the new material that has just been issued.  Something developed later doesn’t replace something developed earlier.  The new does not wipe out the old.  The old generally correlates well with the new.  There are very few corrections.  One significant correction is contained in the newly-found fact that you can overrun things.  A lot of “old” processes “failed” because they worked so fast that the auditor didn’t spot the release point when it occurred.  This accounts for the poor results of R2-12, when it went wrong.  It works very fast.  We didn’t know about overrun in those days.

With dianetics, you can have one release per chain, so don’t try to escape from confronting engrams by “going release”.  PCs are entitled to make rapid gains and soar on up the line.  That doesn’t apply to students.  Like a great singer, a student has to suffer to be great.  He learns what errors can be made by being a PC who gets messed up.  Someone who has never been overrun doesn’t appreciate why it is undesirable.  Getting bad auditing isn’t necessarily disastrous.  It teaches the student not to give bad auditing.  I have been audited by dianetic auditors who were trained in an academy that taught only the “bubble theory”. [?]

Nothing will help an aberrated being, short of processing.  “Standard tech is a very very narrow path, and it’s very easy to stray off of its edges.”  It is bounded on all sides by wrong things to do, in auditing.  One wrong thing is to fail to handle PCs while auditing them.  You must keep the PC handled, in order to audit him.  One way to suppose that you couldn’t handle PCs while auditing them is to think that you can’t do anything about something which is above a PC’s grade.

“You can always run an advanced process on a PC as a rudiment, as something to straighten the case out in a hurry.”  For instance, even though problems = Grade 1, you can always run Level 1 as a rudiment for Level 0.  In fact [if the PC has a PTP], you had damn well better.  It is not, “I’m sorry. We can’t talk about your problems, because that’s Grade 1, and you are only working on Grade 0.  And at the Problems level, you may run into service facs, e.g. the PC’s lumbosis.  These can give you a hard time in making a problems release.  After all, the reason why the chart is the way it is, is that the “Gradation Chart ... is made up only [at the level of the grades] of those things which you can’t audit in the face of, and that is the genus of the chart, ... the real reason why I found the grades, and why....  There are certain things that, if you don’t pay attention to them, prevent all progress in auditing and in life.  So therefore they must be the keys to aberration. And That’s where we got the ... chart.”  Only these factors have appeared as barriers to case gain, when not handled.  “These are the super barriers to the track.”

1.  PTP’s give rise to no TA, no as-ising, inability to concentrate, inability to answer auditing commands, and perhaps some degree of rising TA.

2.  Missed withholds and overts cause a nattery, choppy, and mean PC.

3.  ARC breaks give the PC a sad effect.

4.  Communication problems lead to no communication.  Unconsciousness is a communication problem.  The CDEI scale can be applied to communication.  For instance, O/W must be a higher grade than problems, because a person could confront having problems, when he couldn’t confront an overt.

Don’t think that because someone is a Grade IV release, he will never again have out-ruds of any sort.  The product you have is a gross product. The release can last quite awhile or not.  It is not gold.  It is gilt, and it can tarnish.  Sometimes it turns green.  It is the temporariness of this state (which is, after all, a state of keyed-out clear) that boobytrapped the whole research line in the field of the mind.  There are lower-scale harmonics of everything the thetan can do or be.  The state of thetan exterior is what the Buddhists called a Bodhi.  It is not a permanent state.

However, even though it is not permanent, release should not be underrated.  It is accompanied by the experience of overcoming that which the person has been released on, and that improves his ability to confront.  Also, a bit of erasure has occurred, which desensitizes the whole thing.  So the releases made nowadays are more stable than the releases that were made in 1950.  Now, we are approaching release on a gradient, and we know what grade of release we are making.

(Always be willing to give the PC a win.)

The clear cog is, “I’m mocking it up.”  Clears follow the rules of life, until they, themselves, have changed their minds about the rules.  And when they do that, of course, they are OT’s.  “Oddly enough, OT processes are upper harmonics of the same things that prevent auditing, only they aren’t processes.”

If you want to audit, you must handle whatever rud is out, when it’s out.  If the PC at Grade IV isn’t talking, he may be a communications release, but you will get nowhere until you get him in comm.  Communication is the carrier wave of all processing.

“Someone who’s a release is less likely to have out-ruds, but these things can still occur.”  Having the grades doesn’t mean that you won’t get ARC broken with yourself and with the auditor.  If you want a good auditor at Grades VI and VII, become one.

There are interim release points on the chart that you are probably neglecting.  Someone could get an F/N on a communications process, without being released on every aspect of communication.  So he isn’t necessarily a communications release.  A lot of processes were dropped out of the lineup that shouldn’t have been dropped.  You will have to use tech from another grade, in running a grade.  [At Level 0], you have valence processes as well as the usual comm processes.  You have some more complicated comm processes at Grade 1.  All along the line, there are lots of processes that someone could be released on.

R4H = R2H (Recall an ARC break.  Date it.  Assess.  Indicate BPC.). CCH’s were on Grade II.  Also ARC processes, plus case remedies.  At Level III, you get auditing by lists and overt/ justifications.  There are also physical processes, meter dating, and cause and effect processes.  Don’t ignore grades processes as rudiments.

“PCs don’t ever object to auditors unless they’ve got overts on them,” no matter how lousy their auditing is.  Pull the withhold.  A PC audited over an ARC break protests, then screams, then fusses, then gets tired, and then gets sad and sadder.  Neglecting rudiments will ruin a case.  You will have to use them on all PCs, at one time or another.  Don’t ever fail to notice out-ruds or fail to put them in when they are out.  That, and going non-standard, is the only thing that could bar a person from going clear.  

6608C02 SHSpec-73 Suppressives and GAE’s

Normally, there is no penalty for a crime of omission.  In this society, it is being there and communicating that are the crimes that are mostly punished.  But there are also crimes of omission.  For an auditor, not being there and not communicating are the highest crimes.

In the area of tech, we have gone from total change to total no-change. The materials are all there.  The road to clear, from raw meat to Grade IV, is very fast.  That is something you can have trouble with is an auditor.  It is over before you notice.  There is a difference between wog and raw meat.  A wog isn’t even trying.  Some processes are dangerously quick, so they are not even in the line-up, because they overrun too easily.  R2-12 is one of these. The route is so fast that only GAE’s can prevent someone from going.  [Watch out!  Here come quickie grades!]

Every thetan wants out, at least for himself, even the suppressive.  A suppressive is a special breed of cat.  He is someone with no case gain.  The SP knows that he belongs in [the soup], so he is sure that you want to put him in.  An SP could be described as “someone who is always totally surrounded by Martians, no matter who you are.”  As an auditor, he will do nothing but commit GAE’s.  He won’t just commit a few.  He won’t audit at all.  But he will say, “See?  I try to audit these guys, and it doesn’t work, so it’s a worthless fraud.”  He rewards only down statistics.  He goofs up and vilifies every effort to make people better.

(The trouble with scientology in South Africa is that they are afraid that LRH will teach it to Africans!)  

If registrars kept this no-case-gain fact in mind, it would save us lots of trouble.  We wouldn’t try to audit them.  An SP will make no case gain and can’t resist bragging about it.  The registrar could route them to the ethics officer.  Anyone has the right to complain about one auditor, but not about all auditors.

As an auditor, the suppressive is only happy when the PC gets worse, and he is sad when the PC gets better.  An SP is in a state of constant attack on scientology.  He commits overts 24 hours a day.  You very seldom find out about it.  Another characteristic is that he attacks wrong targets.  He attacks those who are trying to help him.  He will not complete a cycle of action.  If by chance he does complete one, he will reverse it.  “At no time during this lecture have I said that all existing governments on the planet today reward down statistics, choose wrong targets, fail to complete cycles of action, or commit continuous overts.  I have not said that, and your inference on that subject is your own responsibility!” An SP believes that “you are trying to trick him into letting down his protective mechanisms long enough so that you can “stab him in the back.”

If, as an auditor, you observe all these things and the PC is getting no case gain, you know that tech is out, because it isn’t working.  You, as an auditor, can be an ethics officer, if need be.  You should know some ethics tech.  You have to know how to locate overts that are so unreal that they don’t read on a meter.

The heads of governments are suppressives.  They do commit continuous overts, and they do the other things that SP’s do.  They would get no case gain if you audited them.  Having them in the driver’s seat is a dangerous situation.  Ethics must be gotten in, not on a police state basis, but on a very narrow, precise basis.

The world is also full of PTS people.  They are the ones who cause most of the trouble, hence the name.  The PC who gets and loses case gain is roller-coastering.  He has an SP somewhere on his lines, either directly or by restimulation.  Auditing is fast, but it isn’t fast enough to overcome the SP.  You could take the PTS out of his restimulative environment, audit him up to Grade V, let him go back to the environment, and he would collapse.  The reason why the PTS individual roller-coasters is that the suppressive person or valence will try to destroy him if he makes case gain.  Therefore, don’t audit a PTS.  You may kill him.  A PTS person could make it, however, [if he made it as far as the clearing course.] Grade VI is the make/break point.  At Grade VI, you could barely make it in the presence of an SP.  Below this, it is not possible.

Another way to handle the PTS individual is to do an S and D to find the suppressive.  The S and D is an assessment, not auditing.  It is an ethics action.  Therefore you can’t have GAE’s during an assessment, because it is not auditing.  You ought to get the ARC break handled by assessment first, before doing an S and D.

What can you do for an SP?  The only known action that will change an SP is the last power process.  He is the real psycho.  The only place that it can be done is in an org that has Class VII’s who could run it and a registrar who will throw him out when he comes in complaining of no case gain.  Because getting him to answer the question could be very difficult.  If you did do power on him, his next action would be Grade 0 or lower.  But until you have total control of the environment and padded cells, send him to ethics.  If it turns out that he has been well audited with no case gain, you are taking your life in your hands to put him in the HGC.  

An SP got to be one by switching valences.  Man is basically good, but he mocks up evil valences and gets into them.  An SP is in a false, mocked-up valence, to which he has earlier assigned or postulated evil purposes or actions.  Evil is the declaration and postulate that evil can exist, that’s all.  In the absence of such postulates, Man is good.  Scientology would be very dangerous if that were not true.  The suppressive first mocked up badness in another, then took on that valence.  The suppressive got in the bad valence, committed overts, then was attacked by other beings.  He is stuck in that second incident.  It is far more real than PT.  He is living a nightmare.  Anybody has a few of these realer-than-real pictures, but when most of us run into them, we are running back into them.  The SP never left.  You and I may go back to an incident of trauma, but an SP has never left it.  The incident is more real to him than PT.  To the SP, all life is the threat of this incident and the personnel in it.  All life is this incident, and everyone in PT is one of the attackers.  That is all there is to an SP.  He continuously commits overts because (he thinks) he is defending himself.  You could get in this state only if you had lots of overts before it.  This makes the SP choose wrong targets.  He can’t complete cycles of action, because he is stuck in time.  That is why the last power process works.  A person commits overts, stacks up the bank until he can’t move on the track, then gets the business.  Institutions contain few SP.  They mostly contain PTS’s.

Power processes can blast the SP loose [from his stuck point on the track], so that he can then be normally audited.  But how can he be audited [on power processing in the first place] by someone who is perceived as an enemy? How can a cop or the Roman Legion audit him?

Psychiatrists fail to put in ethics on their own profession.  That is LRH’s criticism of them.  LRH’s quarrel with governments and politics is the same.  Any system that permits an evil man to rise to power is a bad system.

As an auditor, you are only at liberty to handle ethics if you yourself have clean hands, and if you have certainty that it is not your auditing that is the cause of no case gain.  You must be satisfied that you don’t commit GAE’s before you can accurately spot an ethics problem.  The difference between a confident and an unconfident auditor is that the unconfident auditor is one who feels that he may be committing GAE’s.

The benefits of doing TR’s are the benefits of the auditing comm cycle itself, apart from the processes used.  We know that the tech is not inadequate.  If you omit tech or add to tech, it fails to work.  There was an additive, until recently.  Auditors were quitting when a TA went low, saying that the PC could then only be audited on power.  The truth is that a case that is chronically below 2.0 is in chronic apathy and won’t really get over it until he gets power processing, but he can get gains on grades.

The easy way to know whether it is your error or the PC’s condition that is causing auditing problems is to know the five GAE’s.  Your judgment on an ethics problem depends entirely on your confidence in avoiding GAE’s.  They are very obvious.  You could detect them on a tape of your auditing.  Be interested in what is going on with the PC.  Observe how he is doing.  Getting and keeping a PC in session is under the heading of observing the PC, which depends on a willingness to confront the PC.

“[Real] justice can never occur in the absence of an understanding of the human mind.  Never.”  Our justice leaves artificial justice behind it. Justice is only necessary in an aberrated world or area.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1966

Remimeo 
Tech Sec 
D of T
ERRORS OF STUDENTS

The following list of common errors causing student flunks in the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course has been obtained from the Student Examiner by the Guardian WW:

Level 0

Theory—Not knowing commands—model session.

Written—Not fully understanding what a Q & A is. 
The symptoms of Premature Acknowledgement. 
What a PTS is.

Practical—Poor TR 0.

Auditing—By-passing floating needles. 
Auditing PTS. 
Saying the needle floated below 2.0 on the Tone Arm.

Level I

Theory—Not knowing what makes a meter read (female students mostly). 
Not knowing the various scales.

Written—Not understanding how an auditor can prevent a Pc from coming into PT in the CCHs. 
Q & A—not recognizing it in an auditing situation, (most students pass this written exam).

Practical—TR 9, not running TR 9 with fine clear intention. 
Too much force being applied when not necessary.

Auditing—Over-running—under-running. 
Saying Pc went Problems Release on Grade 0 Processes. 
Auditing over unflat ruds. 
By-passing FN.

Level II

Theory—Missed W/Hs—understanding of. Model session. 
ARC Breaks and their relationship to overts and M/W/Hs. 
How to do Auditing by List.

Written—M/W/Hs and W/Hs—critical thoughts—ARC Breaks and what caused which. 
Study material—appreciation of.

Practical—Not knowing and understanding how to do Auditing by List. 
Reading meter through a D/N. 
Long comm lags with admin and asking next question. 
Bad TR 0.

Auditing—Additives to process—not stopping at floating needle or under-running.

Level III

Theory—How to do an ARC Break Assessment. 
Difference between By-passed Charge Assessment and ARC Break Assessment.
When to stop doing ARC Break Assessment.

Written—The primary error in handling ARC Breaks. 
How to do listing and nulling. 
Confusing ARC Breaks with by-passed charge.

Practical—Goofing up nulling a list. 
Doing nulling through D/N. 
Turning the sensitivity up in the assessment. 
Not being able to clean the needle on the Pc.

Auditing—Not knowing what to do with CDEI Scale or method of running R3H.
Over-running—under-running. 
Not handling an ARC Break properly.

Level IV

Theory—Definition of Service Fac. Rehab procedure. Understanding what PTS is.

Written—Recognizing a PTS situation. Details on rehabbing. Listing & Nulling rules. Recognizing when a new key-in has occurred in a rehab session. Knowing the rules on when to run a grade or when to rehab.

Practical—Slow nulling of a list—not doing it slickly and with certainty and with good TRs. Correct procedure on Listing and Nulling. Correct procedure on Auditing by List. Reading through D/N.

Level Vl

Very few flunks—occasionally over confusions on R6EW running—either shows in Theory or Written Exam.

Solo Audit

Lots of flunks—model session, scales, basics, what makes a meter read, comm cycle, admin, how to do a worksheet. 
Sometimes running process—R6EW—usually basics are weak.

Dangerous Auditor’s Exam—No flunks!

								L. RON HUBBARD

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

6608C16 SHSpec-75 Releases and Clears

The problem that we have had with releases is the problem of overrun.  We have also had lots of unknown data on the extent of the bank.  Buddha made the same mistake: not being aware of the existence of the bank or the mind, 2500 years ago.  10,000 years ago, there was a monk named Dharma.  Dharma made the mistake of believing that you didn’t have to do anything but become wise. From him comes the basic philosophical assumption that if you become wise, you become free.  This is in the woof and warp of today’s culture.  The idea that an individual can exteriorize and that by doing so he can become free was part of Gautama Siddhartha Buddha’s teaching.  That hasn’t become part of the popular culture yet, so we are slightly ahead of our time.  It seems to take 10,000 years for such ideas (e.g. Dharma’s idea, given above) to become central to a culture, so Buddha’s idea (see above) has 7500 years to go and scientology, on the same time table, has 10,000, minus 16, years to go.

In other zones of the universe, the existence of the mind is known.  In the Galactic Confederacy, they have a psychotherapy that consists of a recognition of the fact that, at a moment of fatal accident to a thetan, a picture is made.  However, they think that it is a location, not a picture. They take a picture of the location where the thetan was hurt and show it to him with a movie clapstick-like thing slapped in front of it.  Then the thetan is supposed to follow suit by doing the same thing to his picture, and thus be free of its effects.  That is their way of making releases.  That therapy is administered to the releases in that society that pass for OT’s.  They are OT releases.  That is the closest other therapy to scientology.

Today’s concentration on education, universities, etc., is a result of Dharma’s ideas on wisdom: the idea that education leads to freedom, that you can’t have freedom and ignorance.  He had a tough time.  10,000 years ago, Man was more of an animal than he is today, so it was more difficult for Dharma to communicate with them.  [It is interesting that education is an outgrowth of a desire for wisdom.  Hence scientology is in this mainline.  This would be an interesting topic for a lecture or a chapter of a book:  the estrangement of wisdom from education.] It was a terrific advance to get the idea of becoming free by becoming wise across to the savages of this planet, 10,000 years ago. This idea is now so widely accepted that the second-largest expenditure of taxes, after the military, is for education.  At Dharma’s time, there was the knowledge that freedom was attainable, but there was no tech.  7500 years later, Buddha discovered exteriorization.  Gautama Siddhartha Buddha first exteriorized under a Bodhi tree.  He thought you did it by becoming wise.  One of G.S. Buddha’s other ideas was that you should be civilized and polite. And Buddhism civilized three quarters of Asia.  But exteriorization was not generally doable, to any great degree.  The Tibetan Lamas came along later and squirreled, trying to develop an explanation of exteriorization or a technology to accomplish exteriorization.  

We are the gainers, from this history, to the extent that there is a history and acceptance of the idea that the soul exists.  Our gain is that the idea of the soul has been accepted by many for a long time.  The idea that there is a soul that goes somewhere after death has dominated Graeco-Roman and Mohammedan thought for 2000 years.  Socrates originated this idea, in the present philosophical tradition.  There is a verbal tradition about Socrates in Greece, that Socrates held forth for the existence of a personal being or thetan.  Buddhism advanced into the West through the Essenes and Christianity.  Later, the Nicene Creed developed from the Dead Sea Scrolls.  A hundred years after its development, it was advanced by Jesus of Nazareth, “a powerhouse with an already existing philosophy.”  The Christian church today has to contend with the embarrassing fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Christ and yet contain the New Testament.  This is just the advance of Buddhism in the Western world.  Christ studied in the East for thirty years. By the time Gautama Siddhartha Buddha’s ideas had gone from India through Greece, Spain, Ireland, etc., they were alter-ised to, “Man has a soul, but it is ‘over there’, and belongs to God, etc.”  Buddha’ thought became unrecognizable.

There has never before been a clear, only releases.  The most that was achieved by any of these former philosophies was release:
1.  Dharma: Release by wisdom.

2.  Buddhism: Release by exteriorization.

3.  Christianity: Release by repentance and being good.

In scientology, we just let Bodhi (i.e. exteriorization) happen.  It is not even that significant to us, because we are going for a permanent state. However, if, in the course of auditing someone, he goes exterior, you stop right there.  If you go on, you bang him back into his body and into his bank, and he will be ARC broken.  A PC exterior is on a harmonic of OT but can’t have it.  He has had a bunch of losses in the past -- bad experiences, like deaths, associated with exteriorization, and he snaps back in very soon, scared.  He is not competent to cope with it.  He isn’t ready for it.

You can take someone who has been insane and have him go totally sane by exteriorizing him.  You can also have someone go out, come back in, and never know it.  The formula for popping someone out is, “Try not to be three feet back of your head.”

Buddhism spread like wildfire, because it was such clear-cut truth.  In one fell swoop, we have capitalized upon the idea that a man who is improved becomes free.  We have brought Buddhism’s twenty year effort to exteriorize down to twenty seconds.  We have found what kept Dharma’s efforts from perfection and what barriered Buddhism, in a culture that only accepts Dharma’s idea but not yet Buddha’s.  Don’t be discouraged by failures to get instant acceptance for scientology.  But notice also that earlier missionaries had bank and therefore haven’t had a pure version of the truth that they were spreading.  The Christians civilized things somewhat, but there were too many vias to get very good results with Christianity:  from Buddha, through Socrates, through the original form of Christianity, through organized Christianity, through various arguments of Christianity.  Buddhism spread faster than Christianity, because Buddha’s ideas were closer to those of Dharma.  Buddha was capitalizing on Dharma’s idea that wisdom would make you free, which was acceptable to his society.  It carried the implication that it was possible to be free.  Asia knew that there was a possibility of Man becoming free -- a very hard message to get across.  

“No matter how information is conveyed, if it is conveyed at all, and it is truth, it will take root.”  So scientology won’t really take 10,000 years to get across.  It will be more like fifty years, at the outside, given how fast Buddhism civilized Asia and Japan, and given:

1.  The result that we can produce.

2.  Modern communication.

3.  The slightly more barbaric conditions 2500 years ago.  “If you take half a century to get scientology around, you are really slow, man!  You notice I said, ‘you’!”

When you first address a being, then, you are capitalizing on the past indoctrination and belief of the being.  You must take this into account.  The Magna Carta is a direct result on education in Dharma, through the church. The Spanish Civil War of 1936 was also the result of the philosophy of Dharma, because, in the decade just before the war, paperback books were introduced. People read French and English philosophers and got the idea that, now that they knew something, they should be free.  They actually resisted freedom though, so it backfired.  Where you fail, in disseminating, is where you run into someone who doesn’t have this assumption.  People have to learn that individuals should be free or educated.  A government that skimps on education is either one that hasn’t heard of the philosophy of Dharma or one that suppresses this philosophy out of fear.

In the West, you are talking to a Christian people who, unfortunately, think of the soul as an owned commodity that they should not play with.  They are stunned to think of someone exteriorizing.  They are “really not up to the idea of Buddha, [though] they have [gotten the idea of] Dharma.”  Such people have gone past Dharma but haven’t reached Buddha.  It is to such people that you are trying to teach scientology.  So don’t go in over their heads. Fortunately, they do agree with the Gradation Scale of Release.  They understand the idea of clear, as someone who doesn’t have barriers to his thinking or to freedom of his mind.  But they will not understand exteriorization, which is in the realm of OT.  So talk about clear, but don’t talk about OT.

There are many undercuts that you could teach him.  Dianetics is not the lowest undercut.  Only a relatively enlightened public will accept dianetics. The public will understand the idea of a communication release as a person who gets rid of his barriers to communication.  They can get the idea that a person can communicate better, that a person can be released from an inability to communicate.  A wog, who can’t communicate, will think that communications release is great for stammerers and backwards children, etc.  He thinks it’s great for others, in short.  But he will buy the idea.  Likewise with problems.  A wog will buy the idea that “Man would be better off if he could handle problems,” and so on, up the line.  There is a high probability that you will make a connection, somewhere.  The idea that wisdom leads to freedom is basic on this chain.  It “releases a man from imprisonment by ignorance and that is your first [form of] release.  Teach a person that if he learned something, he would be freeer,” and he will be “released from the idea that he can’t know.”  This is the earliest stage of release.  You would do well to argue with people on the basis of this first premise: the Dharmic fundamental, because Dharma’s idea is the direct ancestor of scientology.  There is a lower level of release, one you would use in processing animals.  It is the idea that an animal could get an idea across to another animal.  This is not communication.  

“You have to know you’re in something before you can get out of it.” That is the main difficulty with communicating levels of release.  And people (Psychologists, etc.) “are not aware of the mind.  They see another bloke. They don’t see any mind....  So he says there is no such thing as a mind,” only a brain, which can be seen.  But in fact, the brain is just a sort of neural shock absorber.

Looking at scientology as a “philosophy” is agreeable to people.  When you put it this way, you are in agreement with the idea that a person can become freer, released from some of his travail, by becoming wiser.  So use Dharma in dissemination.  Your next level of release that is acceptable to the world at large is that Man is a spiritual being: Buddha’s idea.  However, don’t use this.  Wundt, of Leipzig, wiped out Buddha in the West, in 1879, when he introduced the idea that Man was an animal, so it was OK to kill him. This is like the Christian philosophy, advanced in the second or third century AD, that Man was conceived in evil and was evil, so it was perfectly OK to kill, maim, etc.  It was [and is] a justification for overts.  The Christian has not found out that the psychologist is an atheist.  This is partially due to the inarticulateness of the psychologist.  The populace thinks that psychology is silly, but suppressives and governments support it because it prevents releasing.  SP’s support SP subjects and technologies.  That is why the government supports psychology and psychiatry.

In disseminating, you could say, “You are a Christian, aren’t you?” Then he has admitted that he is a spiritual being.  Reincarnation was only barred in Christianity in the last few hundred years.  The former idea was that guys who hadn’t been good enough had to come back and live it all over again.  If you can get someone to buy the idea that he is a spiritual being, he is released from a truth that could trap him.  Possibly this is where you could introduce the idea of exteriorization, but I don’t advise it.

Dianetics can give one a release from this one lifetime.  That is a terrific release!  You have “made” an immortal.  The terrible consequences of death go away.  You can start with the idea that there is a mind.  A, looking at B, doesn’t see B’s mind, so he doesn’t know that B has a mind.  He may think that B only has a brain.  You have to put across the idea that because this fellow [the fellow that you are talking to] has a mind, that that person has a mind.  With dianetics, it would follow that he is immortal.  Then he is released from the idea that Man is matter and that he only has one life. Fortunately, people do know that there is such a thing as a mind and mental things.  They haven’t gotten totally sold on the psychologists’ theory that mind = brain.  So you can move in and introduce the idea of the mind being composed of pictures.  With a little dianetic auditing, the person will realize that he is immortal, and you will have released him from the idea that he is matter.  So you should be aware that you can release people just by talking to them, up to a point, but remember:  always stop at the “F/N VGI’s”.  Don’t try to just communicate the data up the chart.  To do so overwhelms people.  They have to come to realize it.  As you progress up the grade chart, it becomes progressively more impossible to talk them out of what they are sitting in.  At Levels VI and VII, it would be fatal.

(An ultimate release would be release from the universe.)  

“When we say ‘release’ we mean ‘freeing’.  We can free someone from an idea that entraps him.  Ideas are the only real traps and one can get released from them.  There are many grades of release below Zero.  At Zero and up, we are starting to free someone directly from his reactive mind, treating him as a spiritual being.  At Level 0, we are pulling him out of a mass that tells him that he can’t communicate.  So we have to pull him out of mental masses, as well as out of ideas.  At Level VII and up, we don’t pull him out of mental mass.  We erase it.  We turn around and eat the tiger.  That is a form of release that we call ‘clear’.  But this being at this level is still in the universe and associated with the body.  There are [therefore] grades of release above clear.  Not many people below the level of clear look any higher, though, because clear is a pretty triumphant level.

When you get an F/N, shut up, because you have just released the PC from something.  You have to know why he got the F/N to get him through Qual [I.e. you have to know what he is released on.] Get this data from the auditing notes, not from the PC.  Most stages of release have only relative degrees of stability, but a release never unreleases to the same degree of Stygian darkness that he was in before the release.

A clear is someone who has erased the barriers to his postulating freely.  He can, at this point, easily postulate a bank, and some have done so, not realizing that that was what they were doing.  A clear can postulate a bank and then not realize that he has done so, or that he can simply blow it.

We are making dianetic “clears”.  The trouble we had doing it earlier came only from over-auditing people.  Also, don’t ever try to teach a guy something that he already knows.  It is an overrun.  A released person doesn’t tend to relapse, but he may run into the next higher level’s sticky plaster. They haven’t unreleased.  They are just enterprising and speculative, and this drives them into the next level.  Someone who has been released and comes in the next day with no F/N has just gotten into the next mass that he is going to confront.

Releases want others to be released and cleared.  But don’t release people to make them better for others’ sakes.  Being released is something that is a reward, not a right. 

6608C18 SHSpec-76 Study and Intention

The name of the source becomes identified with the product.  Like Kleenex, the name Dharma became identified with the product rather than with the source of the product, so that today, you can’t find a correct definition of Dharma anywhere.  The word, “Dharma” does not have its original meaning preserved.  According to dictionaries, it means:

1.  Supreme law.

2.  The Caste system of India.

3.  Fate.

4.  Love.

5.  The Way (in Buddhism).  

2500 years ago, Gautama Siddhartha said that the Age of Love was to begin in the West in 2500 years.  We started the Age of Love by making clears.  They talk about love a lot.  We are no longer in the Age of Reason, thank God!  

A student should be aware of his intention in studying.  Faulty source may be important in study.  A student tends to assume that the source that he is studying from has some validity, but this isn’t necessarily the case.  In fact, it frequently isn’t the case.

Difficult exams in universities don’t correlate with excellence of graduates, because, for one thing, study is an area that attracts suppressives, like the areas of government or healing.  For instance, in navigation, the method used is what is tested in exams.  But the fact that you can navigate is all the sea cares about.  Textbooks on navigation are often so complex that you have to know all about the subject before you can understand the bock.  Many textbooks on the sea are full of nothing but disaster, in great detail.  Coast pilots are particularly full of warnings and disasters. You could write any subject up to make it a suppressive subject, [by making it seem too dangerous to practice.] On the other hand, you can not give any cautions about the subject, like leaving out the fact that a wrongly-done S and D that gets the wrong suppressive will make the PC sick, because it restimulates [and bypasses] the right one.  The mind has been made too dangerous to study.

The writers of textbooks need a knowledge of study materials.

“As you study, what do you intend to do with what you are studying?” For what purpose are you studying? Until you clarify that point, you can’t study intelligently.  The trouble with university education is that students study to pass exams, not to use the materials in practice.  That is scholastic or academic study, which isn’t worth much.  This is why you get failures in practice after certification.  If someone studies just for examinations, he doesn’t have to know the exact meanings of the words.  Thus we get very educated dumbbells.

Some subjects are taught suppressively and are therefore ethics subjects.  Where a subject is very suppressive, it can be studied for examination, needing only to be memorized and spat back, but it can’t be applied, because there was nothing there to be understood.  Study gone wild leads to suicides.  [Cf. French universities at exam time.]  People who are very successful in life are frequently the drop-outs, who realize that university texts are not arranged to let you apply anything.  Not a single philosopher except Mills stayed in school.  A subject that is written up with a slant or curve is relatively inapplicable too.  Economics is a good example.  Economics hardly exists in its simple purity anymore.  Similarly, psychoanalysis has no relation to Freud anymore.  Scientology is studied along the same lines that it was researched on.  It has no curve to it.  If anything is inapplicable, you will soon run into it. 

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.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:lb-r.cden                                 				
Copyright ©1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 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.

L. RON HUBBARD

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

6608C23 SHSpec-77 Organization

A business org pattern wouldn’t fit a scientology org because business orgs have never isolated the principles of organization.  In a scientology org, you are handling life as a commodity, and you are handling life with a vessel made out of life.  This is like trying to pour water into a pitcher made of water.  In this situation, you will find out every frailty in an organization.  But one law businesses have not violated:  Any organization is better than no organization.  

Individuals as such, operating together, will fall apart when they collide with an organized group.  Brilliant leadership can only go so far.  It needs execution.  Otherwise it fails.  An organization will normally win, unless it is confronted with a superior organization.  An organization consists of a group of individuals with a common goal or purpose.  There will never be an org that is perfect, because it is composed of individuals who are to a greater or lesser degree informed of the rules and in agreement with the purpose.

An organization must, to some degree, consist of sentient, irreducible individuals.  It must depend on the individuals.  For instance, literacy is a prerequisite for democracy.  England does better than some other democracies because it has a high level of education.  Individuals in the U.S. have so many and varying prejudices that none can really take hold.  It also has a high level of education.  Therefore it is the richest country in the world. Business management in the U.S. is very tight.  In spite of bad leadership that will eventually cause trouble, the U.S. is doing well.

Organization also has drawbacks:

1.  Limited power of choice of the individual.

2.  An organization often swallows up the talents and potential contributions of the individual.

3.  It often plays Hobb with the very principles that it is trying to forward.

4.  Wrongly led, an organization becomes a machine that goes straight over the cliff to destruction.  But the plus points prevail over the out-points.  Organizations endure better than individuals.  On the whole track, orgs best survived when led by keyed-out OT’.  You would think that these individuals would be unorganizable because of their differences of opinion.  Yes.  They do have differences of opinions.  But they still realize that it is better to be organized than not. They also recognize the liabilities of orgs.  Higher posts shift a lot in OT organizations.  The OT’s are a minority group in charge of fantastic majorities.

An individual who puts together an organization without knowing how to do it makes a mess.

Law of Organization:  A large organization is composed of groups, and a small organization is composed of individuals.  When a large org is composed of individuals the individual gets devalued.  You get a lack of comparability [between the individual and the group of which he is a member].  Therefore, the individual feels oppressed.  “The people vs.  John Jones” makes a paranoid.  Therefore, the ideal form of organization is individuals composed into sub-groups.  If you try to produce a group that is all composed of individuals and expand it, it goes all to [pieces].  An org will remain a small group as long as it is composed of individuals.  Income tax is a violation of this principle, because the individual must report to the government once a year.  Thus, quite apart from the economics of income tax [e.g. penalizing up stats], this will make the country grow smaller.  Each person can be jumped on by the government without a buffer.  You must cut out the situation of having an organization vs. an individual, and stick to the situation of the organization vs. a group.  

A group does have an optimum size.  Seven or eight subordinates is a lot.  If a person had only two subordinates, he would loaf.  So the optimum is somewhere between two and eight.  So we can say that five is optimal.  A big group, then, would be ten and a small group would be two or three.  By the time you are getting up into a group of seven or eight, it is best to split things up into two groups.  The members of each section look to their section leader.  [This also means that an executive spends one sixth of his time consulting with higher management and five sixths of his time dealing with his five subordinates.] A director only looks to his section leaders, and an [Executive] Secretary only looks to directors.  A danger condition would consist of an [Exec] Sec giving orders to section leaders, bypassing the director.  When this happens, the org will get smaller.

You could move this organizational scheme out to where the org could contain the population of the planet.  Size means nothing if you know this law of organization.  Therefore you need an expandable and a contractable system. The lowest number in a group should be five to six people.  Two people isn’t really a group; it is a pair.

When the state breaks down the family as a group, the church, etc., the state shrinks.

When a manager becomes overworked, his area won’t expand.  Therefore, if you want to expand, make sure your manager isn’t overworked.

You can’t have a section that is independent of other sections.  If you try to have such a section, it will float free and collapse.  It must have service and communication connections with the rest of the group.

There are seven divisions on the Org Board.  The Org Board is a cylinder, a circle.  To show this fact, we put the seventh division in front of Div 1. You enter the org board at the first department of the first division.  The org board is organized to impel a particle from the first division on out through the back door.  Any particle entered early will shunt late.  Div 7 doesn’t necessarily catch what is ejected at Div 6, so there is a way out of the org board.  If you violate the position of anything on this chart, you cut your throat.

The order of departments was found by trial and error.  Earlier on, we got into trouble because we tried to put Origin or Construction in Dept. 9 [now (1976) the Department of Records, Assets, and Materials, in Div 3.]  It belonged at Origin, so construction had to be back towards source.  If something is mis-positioned on the board, it will be non-functional and will cease to work.  The order of the divisions is:

1.  HCO.  You have to start with communications.

2.  Dissem.  Dissemination is necessary with the communication.  You must tell people what you are going to make.

3.  Organization Division (Treasury).  This is the division that organizes the MEST for the assembly of products.

4.  Tech.  This division has to do with production.

5.  Qual.  This division deals with correction or adjustment.

6.  Distribution.  This division is to get rid of the product.  This is also a sales division.  When they are busy getting rid of the product, they are also making new customers that enter at Div.1.      

7.  Executive.  The first department would be the office of the E.D. or general manager.]  

The problem in an organization is one of succession, but if you get management, you don’t need succession.  The LRH comm approves anything that is not against policy, that the ED wants to do.  The U.S. should have the Office of George Washington.  Each department should have less than or equal to five sections, or it should be written up again.  Then you get subsections, units, subunits, etc..  The org board is a flow chart.
An other primary law of management, the fast-flow system of management: Don’t inspect before it goes wrong.  This just holds up the activities of the organization and puts in arbitraries.  You don’t run an organization by being super-nervous.  You let something happen.  Then you act.  Don’t put in permanent preventers.  Let the flow go.

An organization must produce something.  Everyone must have a stat.

The org pattern would do for a government.  It is far more socialistic than socialism and far more communistic than communism.  Socialism and communism are relatively conservative in comparison.  You would introduce individual companies into your organization as service or production units.

The reason why divisions are in units of three departments is that you have the head of the division representing the thetan, and the three departments representing the mind, body, and product, respectively.

6608C25 SHSpec-78 The Anti-Social Personality

[Reference: HCOB 27Sep66 or Introduction to Scientology Ethics, pp. 9-14 “The Anti-Social Personality”]

LRH has made a complete list of the characteristics of a suppressive person.  The purpose of ethics is to get technology in.  Ethics doesn’t intend social betterment.  It only intends to ensure case advance by getting suppressives out of the environment.  An auditor must know about this, so that he can recognize and handle PTS and suppressive PCs.  This ability to recognize and handle can prevent an auditor from having loses and invalidating himself when an SP doesn’t make case gain.  When PCs rollercoaster, don’t blame the past auditor or the HGC.  Blame the SP.  A PC who is critical of an auditor has a missed withhold from that auditor.  The PC who goes on nattering about the thousands of hours of auditing that he has received, with no gain is another matter.  You can be too propitiative towards people, whereupon you can’t help them anymore.  You exert no control and don’t give effective help. LRH never owed scientology to anyone.  One of the earliest techniques for controlling PCs, taken from early dianetics, was to walk out on a PC who refused to be controlled, with the R-factor that the session would resume when the PC decided to follow the auditor’s directions.  At that point, LRH hadn’t run into failed psychoanalytic cases and people who had been roughed up by psychotherapy.  There were a lot of these people in the first Foundation. They were generally PTS or SP’s.  These cases are much harder to handle with auditing than criminals.  The SP on the case may be nowhere near the PTS individual or the trouble that the PTS causes.  

In early dianetics, a PC who got better and then crashed was said to have been “on a manic”.  A person who is “manic” and then gets depressed, however, has just run into an SP and has gone PTS.  “There is no such thing as a ‘manic’....  It’s just that psychiatrists hate people in that condition, and so they promptly cave them in....  The guy says, ‘Wow!  At last I realize that I can be sane,’ and ‘Isn’t the world wonderful?’ [The psychiatrist says,] ‘Ohmigawd!  You’re in a manic.  We’ve got to give you eighteen extra shocks, [or pills,] etc.’”  The psychiatrist says that euphoria is very bad.  this explains away a person’s getting better.  And this will be used by SP’s against you, as an argument against scientology.  The only reason for cave-in or roller-coaster is an SP!!

Joe Winter’s overt was making a deal with the publisher of Book One to write a book to get the M.D.’s into dianetics:  A Doctor Looks at Dianetics. He claimed that dianetics was an art, a a “knack” that couldn’t be taught. This led to a complete squirrel non-standard tech being spread all over the place, with no results.  “I couldn’t hold in tech, because I:

1.  Didn’t have control of it,   and 2.  Didn’t have ethics.”  Until ethics was gotten in, in organizations, it was impossible to keep tech in and working fully, because there was no way to hold the line and no way to get the suppressives off tech lines.  An auditor who doesn’t recognize ethics-type cases, i.e. SP’s and PTS’s, is setting himself up for loses and for eventually quitting auditing.

There is such a thing as a case who doesn’t have a wall there, only a picture of a wall.  The universe for such a person is a very flimsy mockup, consisting of dub-in.  You can run contact processes on such a person [CCH’s] and he will come back into contact with the wall that you and I see. Occasionally, he will be startled, while doing objective processes, to see the wall getting shaky and disappearing.  You may think that you are making him OT, but you aren’t, because the wall is still there for you.  If he were OT, it wouldn’t be.  He will realize that his mocked-up wall is not the wall that is there.  This individual doesn’t have to be an SP, to have mockups in place of walls.  For the SP, people -- every one of us -- are mockups, too.  We aren’t there.  God knows what is there, in the Place where we are standing.  A paranoid is a mild version of this.  An SP is not a paranoid.  A paranoid just thinks people are against him.  An SP is a person who is “surrounded by identities which others don’t see.”  The paranoid may see purely imaginary people, who aren’t there at all.  The SP “creates” his enemies out of the real “whole cloth” of you and me.  He doesn’t see his enemies unless another real person is there to be turned into a pink alligator, a crazed Indian, or the priests of the Spanish Inquisition.  What is really there in the SP’s universe is something else, other than people, something very threatening and dangerous. Yet, mostly, this person looks totally sane.  He doesn’t hallucinate. [He is just delusional.] He is stuck on the track: really stuck. He has never moved beyond the stuck point on the track.  An SP doesn’t make case gain, because a person needs to have at least a concept of motion on the time track to get from one end of an engram to the other.  The SP can’t run an engram, because he is stuck in a past moment in time and can’t move through through the successive moments of the engram.  You or I might have had an incident there for a long time without noticing it.  But the SP has had the world there for a long time and hasn’t noticed it!  

The anti-social personality has been looked at before, but it has never been fully described in earlier therapies.  We call such a person a suppressive, because that is a more explicit and accurate term.  These are the qualities of the suppressive:

1.  We speaks only in generalities.  He is always talking about “they” and “everybody”.  This effects PTS’s, so they echo it.  But somebody told the PTS.  Newspapers speak of “850 Dead on Holiday”, but they neglect to state that 85 million people were on holiday.  That makes it all look sort of dangerous.  Governments, likewise, govern “the people” or “the masses”, not the individuals who are actually there. This is where the sweeping generality comes in.

2.  He deals in bad news continually and exclusively.  He is critically hostile.  He never relays good news, but may twist good news to bad. Bad news will be relayed and worsened.  A very SP person is so batty, that when he moves up in the world, he makes this the norm.

3.  He alters any communication.  He never duplicates.  (Cf. the game of “Telephone”.)

4.  He doesn’t respond to treatment, reform, or psychotherapy.  The really bad SP won’t come anywhere near an auditing chair.  “The one thing this fellow can not do is confront his own mind.”  The SP feels that he would go totally insane if he had to take one tiny little look at his mind.  That is why the SP goes mad at the idea of getting people to look at their own minds.  An SP is afraid that if he deals with the mind even slightly, those spooks will move slightly.  SP’s cannot be reasoned with on the subject of the mind.  Your crime is that you have almost made them confront something that they don’t dare confront.  And you have almost exposed them, because they are not under good control, and if they love control, they will be put away.

5.  He is surrounded by others in one or another state of ruin and cave-in (PTS’s).  Around such a person we find associates who are cowed, ill, failing, or not succeeding, if not actually driven insane.  When you try to treat these associates, they don’t keep their gains.

6.  He habitually selects the wrong target.  This is not conscious.  It is not just getting mad at the boss because somebody is mad at you. It is very reactive, in the SP.  For instance psychiatrists wreck people and SP’s in governments attack us.  There is a complete dissociation.  It is “Bill failed at college, so therefore we should go on a diet,”  not “Bill failed at college.  Therefore we shouldn’t send his brother, Pete.” Because the SP attacks the wrong target, he doesn’t succeed very will on a job.  This is a saving grace.

7.  He doesn’t complete cycles of action.  If he finds out that he has completed one, he has to redo it.  He mustn’t arrive, and he doesn’t arrive, because his time sense is loused up.  He doesn’t have the idea of consecutive events.   

8.  He will often confess to alarming crimes, with no sense of guilt or personal responsibility whatsoever.  He doesn’t know that there is a difference between good and bad behavior.

9.  He supports and approves of only destructive, downstat, and criminal groups and attacks constructive ones.

10. He approves of destructive actions and disapproves of good actions. He says, “It is probably a good thing that we had the war, because ... “

11. Helping others is an activity that drives him nearly berserk.  However, activities that destroy in the name of help are closely supported.  The idea is to get rid everybody or to make them all miserable.

12. He has a bad sense of property.  He thinks that the idea that people own things is a pretense, made up to fool people. Nothing is ever really owned, to the SP.

“Delusions of grandeur” and desires to dominate have nothing to do with suppressiveness.  The concept of one’s own importance does not have any bearing, here.  An SP may or may not have the feeling of being very important, as may a non-SP.  There is nothing wrong with dominance.  This is not the same as suppression.  It is what a person does with dominance that counts.

An auditor’s skill depends on his recognition of the situation in which he finds himself auditing.  When you manage to isolate a series of characteristics that give you a certain expectancy, knowledge of this data becomes valuable.  If you can see several characteristics on an SP in a person, you can predict the rest and unload.  This is an ethics case.  An auditor should know that there could be more than one SP on the case.  He should locate the other SP(s), if the first S and D doesn’t get permanent results, even though it was well done.  You could do a successful S and D and, at a much later date, the PC could find another SP and roller-coaster from that.

6609C01 SHSpec-79 Gradients and ARC

LRH coaches with the intention of making his student sound and look like an auditor.  Coaching is a happy medium between so many flunks that the student quite and so few that he turns into a lousy auditor.  Any coaching can be improved.  It is easy to coach if you know what the TR you are working on is supposed to do.

The reason for security measures with upper-level materials is because you have to judge the ferocity of the material against the power of the individual that you are giving it to.  The only thing wrong with 1950 dianetics was that people were thrown in over their heads.  The clearing and OT materials look “So what?” when one has finished them, but not before.  If you skip a half a page or glance ahead accidentally while running them, you will get sick.  The gradient approach has been a primary and regulating factor in all of scientology.  It is a new idea, as an overall idea.  A thetan, in particular, responds very well to this approach.  He responds better than a body does.  You can do a gradient that is too shallow or too steep for your PC if you don’t correctly judge his reality level confront, etc.”  just a little bit tough all the way” is best, but not so tough that you get failures.  It should just be hard work.  There are PCs to whom everything is automatic.  

They have no “trouble” on some process, because they don’t perceive the things in the process.  They have no reality.  In CCH’s, there are people who will go through it with no change at all.  They are aberrated as coots.  There is no reality to it.  They don’t have to confront doing the process, because they aren’t doing it.  At person with no reality on lions or tigers can walk though a cage with lions and tigers in it.  You must estimate the degree of a person’s aberration to draw up an estimate of what gradient to apply to it. If you can’t make, e.g., a Grade 0 Release, either:

1.  The PC is already a Grade 0 Release.    

or     

2.  Grade 0 is completely over his head.  

It is obvious which of these two things is the case, if you know what you are looking for.  You can undercut it, if you need to, by raising other corners of the ARC triangle.  For instance, if the PC doesn’t go release on Grade 0, you could audit the PC on various processes to raise A and R.  For instance, dianetic auditing (e.g.  lock scanning) words as an undercut .  This works even on the insane.  There doesn’t have to be anybody else there but the auditor.  [I.e.  the auditor runs the bank.].  Usually it is R that you raise.  Affinity occurs in the process of doing this.  You still have to estimate correctly what the PC can run.  If the PC is in a desperate condition, don’t do something desperate.  An early entrance point is mimicry. Doing mimicry on someone makes you real to them.  It is a low level of communication, but it works very well, especially as a point to at ack, with someone who doesn’t attain Grade 0 Release.

If you imitate a little kid, or if you communicate with him, he will like you.  He will pick you out in a roomful of people, not because he knows you, but because you are real to him.  Below Grade 0, i.e. if comm is really out or is very difficult, you approach with reality as the entry point on the ARC triangle.  So you could use mimicry.  However, if you validate insanity too long, you will stick the PC in a win for his insane behavior.  But you can’t invalidate him either.  Say the guy complains of spiders all over the wall and himself.  Don’t invalidate him.  Pick out the real reality in what he said (“wall” or “me”.  To Hell with the spiders.), and focus on that.  And don’t agree about the spiders.  That is a lie, and basically he knows it, so he will know that you are crazy if you agree about the spiders.  Ask, “What kind of a wall wouldn’t spiders be on?” or “What kind of a wall do spiders like best?” or “Who would you have to be, not to have spiders on you?”, and you will shift his reality.

You could get clever with raising reality.  LRH did, in the late forties.  Unfortunately, lots of therapies sprang from his ran various things.  In 1949, “every time I audited anybody while [others were] watching, it became a school of psychotherapy, because they couldn’t integrate it.... So it, ill by itself, became an approach, like Gestalt Therapy.  They didn’t have the basic data:  gradient scales, ARC triangle, etc.  They just copied one thing used in one case.”  The error was made, that because this was successful as an entrance point with one individual, the same gradient had to be used on all individuals.  For instance, if the PC has policemen on his front porch, he at least has a porch.  Now, the chances are that he has all porches identified A=A=A.  If you can introduce [differentiation] amongst porches, you get an increase in reality and an improved state of case.  But the squirrels would be stuck in asking the PC about walls or -- worse -- spiders, not realizing that in this case, the proper entrance point would be “porch”, a point of mutual reality.  You would get the PC to differentiate between porches and drop the A=A=A.  The squirrel never cognited on what LRH was doing.  He thought that LRH had a “knack”.

“Mathematics is in kindergarten on this planet.”  People on this planet don’t understand symbolic mathematics.  Symbolic math is not doing algebra with symbols.  “It is solving a vast number of non-numerical variables by the use of comparisons, similarities, identities, and differences....  And ... you can’t write it down.”  You mustn’t follow the lead of math in applying “the suppressive generality of a number to the specific entity [e.g. an apple, a person, etc.] which is being calculated.”  Two plus two does not equal and never will equal four.  You have to specify “Two what?” When you answer,”what” non-specifically, you have an insanity.  Man’s math is insane.  “Zero” is a wild variable.  You must specify “Zero of what?” “In what interesting universe is this zero of nothing?” So every time a formula involves zero, as in nuclear physics, it is a guess which, in fact, is based on experiment, and not on mathematical prediction.  These guys really don’t know what they are doing in higher math.  Logic, ultimately, “depends on you and your concept of reality.”  Math is actually a low-grade expression of A, R, and C.  A, R, and C add up to understanding.  Mathematicians, along with others, in denying that you (a being) exist, has dropped out that which uses the math and understands it.  “Mathematics cannot exist without live interpretation.”  It is always you who asks the question and you who receives the answer.  If there are no live beings to understand, there is no mathematics.

Math could be defined as a method of memory, devised by a living being to make inanimate objects or other things appear to think or act.  You will be able to be as much at cause over the whole thing as you are OT, because the more livingness you exert, the more logical you can be about it.  You will be as good, logically, as you are clear.  Eventually, you can run up to a point where you don’t need mathematics.

One of the baffling things about dianetics and scientology is the question, “How did he figure it all out?” There are lots of formulas.  But it is an old line, one LRH is very familiar with.  “It’s a simple matter of ARC, ... of potential understanding.  You can’t stand back and hate men and ... find out any R about them.  You can’t have a total unreality about men -- sitting in some ivory tower someplace ... -- [and hope to get understanding of or reality on Man].  And communication: You can’t go about it being careful of what you say and [by being afraid to] hear.  Anybody who is easily offended had better never go into the business of understanding, because it winds up only with prejudice....  This, of course, explains ... somebody who’s terribly offended by scientology.  He’s so offended by what he hears [shut down communication], he can’t understand anything in the first place.”  The first requisite on studying life is to be alive, not dead or disciplined or approved of.  “In wogs, death really gets people together to approve something, as in, Don’t speak ill of the dead.”  “Therefore, the basis of all scientologic and dianetic research has been understanding.”  There was no mystery involved, just ARC, plus no fear of saying things or looking at things.  “Awareness depends on how alive you are.  I’m not trying to say I’m more alive than others.  I just am!”  

Reality goes lower -- further South -- than communication, and affinity goes lower in reach than reality.  This sounds odd, but it is observationally true.  Insane people with a very low reality can yet feel enough affection to go sane because I asked them to.  Education doesn’t work in the absence of A, R, and C.

A, R, and C are the three pins on which you adjust any auditing session and how you select what you do.  All auditing sessions go by gradients.  There is no need to depart from what is laid out (in the grade chart) in auditing. But what about the zone between the org and the world around you?  It is a problem in:

1.  Gradients.

2.  A, R, and C.  For instance, there are two ways to handle intrafamilial relations:

1.  Individual processing on a gradient.  This is the best way.  It is very senior to education.  [When ethics is used to get tech in,] it is used to force (the family members to act in such a way that tech can go in].  It is not to give advice.

2.  A, R, and C.  This is limited if no one is present to understand.  If they don’t understand, they won’t even start [the process of getting into better ARC].  

This is the problem, here.  We keep looking for some marvellous solution to any individual or organizational problem.  Just realize that “there’s no solution at any time superior to the ability of the person asking for it to understand.  “There is no math that would help figure it out.”  Mathematics is as Good as it can be employed with understanding and as good as the understanding of who asks and who receives the answer....  The answer to becoming better at mathematics is [to] became clearer.  The answer to any problem is to become more alive and more capable of understanding.  That is the answer which pays off.”

How do you do this?  You Get processed, and you process people.  You are not in a position in society to reform society educationally.  You can’t educationally inform the public.  All you can say is that there is a way.  The world’s reality on communication is extremely faint.  What they are using the communication media for is a total malicious waste.  The newspaper is the modern gossip.  A, R, and C in the world today is not good.  Higher-level data from scientology is totally out-R.  So what can a clear, 0T, or release do? He can remember A, R, and C in disseminating.  And he can just be.

Don’t let affinity overwhelm the reality.  Get the affinity and the reality In.  Don’t kid yourself.  You can feel on affinity and get a reality. Never allow others to cut you back from communication.  Then you will understand.  Understanding washes away everything.  Understanding is a universal solvent.

“Communication ... is always within the reality of the person who can hear it.”  So your communication must be within the reality of the individual.  You err when you tell people Any more than they need to know: namely, that there is a way out.  If you tell them more, you bedazzle their understanding.  An 0T could overwhelm a guy.  He could put him in awe or in a religious frenzy.  But the OT is actually putting the other person in a complete unreality is he does this.  The more vulnerable a person is, the less capable of understanding he is, and vice versa.  “At this particular time, our power exceeds our understanding,” though not by much, and this won’t continue to be true.  So we get into a crisis situation:  “Do we get so tired of them we just overwhump them, or do we stay true to our own beliefs and, continuing to suffer the slings and arrows that are thrown at us, still go along in a high state of ARC?” There is no real argument.  The answer is the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.  

So the question is beginning to come up, “What are we going to do with this planet?” The only mathematics that will solve this question and the question of how to protect people at lower levels of awareness is the mathematics of ARC and the Axioms.  We have to be gingerly, because those on the way up the bridge need protection.  The power of scientology will inevitably be used for the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics. The question is how to minimize the casualties along the way.  But LRH doesn’t have any canned answers about what we will do with the planet.  He has a plan for keeping scientologists from being wiped out in a cataclysm.  We are at a crossroads as our power increases.  We have been very forbearing.  We have to rely on good sense and on keeping our reality from degenerating to where it no longer matters what happens to the little guys.  Every religious organization of the past has flunked this test.  I hope we don’t.  Luckily ARC increases as one goes up the levels towards OT.

6609C08 SHSpec-80 States of Identity

Apparently, there is a boundary, beyond which you don’t have thetans; you have endowment of a form with life: the little things that wiggle.  For instance the amoeba or the cell is endowed.  An OT comes along and says, “Let there be chicken!” He leaves a puddle of theta to animate it.  this is the concept of how bodies are built.  There is some truth in the idea that talking to flowers makes them grow better.   ‘Way back someplace, the thetan probably did something like this.  The “green thumb” phenomenon is perhaps a lower-scale harmonic of this.  There do seem to be people with a green thetan.  Other natural abilities of thetans sometimes get preserved in or by individuals in an out-of-control state.  So you get telekinesis, telepathy, child geniuses, etc.  Jung had trouble with “poltergeists”.  Actually, he was subject to a form of below-awareness telekinesis.  Some skills that are on automatic will temporarily vanish in the course of clearing.  Suddenly you find that you can’t do it anymore.  But when it comes back, it is you doing it, instead of a machine or something.

Jung went into only one past life -- that of the English Druids.

Anything wrong with a thetan is a lower harmonic of that he can do, higher up on the scale.  When that goes wrong, his ability on it goes into an inversion or goes out of his control and still happens in his vicinity, as with Jung, and puzzles him.  It is just a little facet of his ability that has been brought down with him and not yet eaten up.  Boy wonders tend to fold up because they don’t know that they are doing it.  It is not under their control.  The musical child prodigy has probably been a good musician in the near past.  As you go upscale, you tend to lose circuits.

If we exempt endowed states of wiggle, we can find out how far down [in the fifth dynamic] a thetan can go.  The answer is:  someplace in the insect or animal kingdom.  Above that, you get thetans; below that, wiggle. Sometimes you run into a horse who is a thetan, and sometimes you run into one that isn’t.  Or a bee who was and a bee who wasn’t.  When nothing much is required of an animal or insect, you can get survival as just a piece of automatic machinery, unchanging in habit pattern, etc.  It is a shadow of a thetan because a thetan made it.  You occasionally find vegetables in the human race: [bodies without thetans].  Maybe sometimes some thetan picks up the body and it changes spectacularly.  

A body can survive, although not well, without a thetan.  When it has been totally guided by a thetan and the thetan leaves, the body isn’t on any automatic functioning, and it won’t do well.  Also, if a thetan caves a body in, the body won’t do well.  A body will only get as good as you take away what is caving the body in.

Most mammalian bodies live six times as long as it takes them to grow up.  Thus Man’s lifespan should go to 110-120 years.  The reason why it doesn’t is that the human body is driven by a thetan.  An aberrated thetan causes a sick body.  A thetan with a service fac is quite capable of keeping a body from getting well.  As a society becomes more aberrated, it becomes more sick.

One form of endowed life may destroy another form.  So it shouldn’t upset you that you can cure up the thetan and the body doesn’t get well.  There are a variety of illnesses that a body suffers from because it is being messed up by a thetan who, with his intention and aberration, is influencing his physical body.  That body will get as well as you relieve the aberration of the thetan in those sectors where the thetan is causing the body to get sick. Therefore, don’t assume that all that is wrong with the body is the mind. But, in addition to the effects of the thetan on the body, there is also a different seement of illness, caused by endowed life units that are designedly contrary to the body’s life units, e.g. disease germs, [parasites, worms, etc.].

Then there is physical injury.  If you hit a body with a battering ram, it doesn’t matter what state the thetan is in.  The body is going to go, “Splash!” If a body is badly Guided, it is smashed often.  So you can reduce this category of bodily ills by fixing up the thetan so that he has fewer accidents.  However, some accident is pretty inevitable in an uncleared environment.  Another factor is the repairing ability of the being.  If one were really upscale as a thetan, he could patch up or repair the body directly, or he could mock up a new one:

Lower Scale Manifestation: The thetan stops knocking the body about.

Upper Scale Manifestation: The thetan can put the body back together again.

So there are three sectors of attack on a body:

1.  Endowed life attacking the endowed life of the body.

2.  Aberration of the thetan influencing the body.

3.  [Mechanical damage to the body.  This would include chemical damage (poisons, lack of air, etc.).]  And there are three basic means of cure:

1.  The thetan can repair the body directly.

2.  You can use beneficial endowed life units (as in antibiotics) to help the body.

3.  You can repair the body mechanically, as with surgery.  Here, you can repair damage [or misplaced parts -- e.g.  from faulty construction of the body] or cut out endowed life forms [infected tissue or cancerous tissue] that attack the endowed life of the body. [Chemical repair could be in this category also, e.g. antidotes, oxygen, water, etc.]

Therefore, to assume that you can cure everything with auditing is as silly as to assume that you can cure fear of spiders by means of neurosurgery.  Beings do tend to an “allness”, a cure-all propensity.  “As long as you are not able to endow matter with life, you have to settle for what you’ve got.”  You have to live with the body you’ve got, or do without one.  So you have to decade whether you are looking at:

1.  Endowed life forms countering each other.

2.  Pure mechanical injury.

3.  Something the thetan is doing to the body.  

You are better off in the last sphere.  The first two need to be handled in an emergency, but the thetan is quite capable of preventing a body from recovering, e.g. with a service fac.  So auditing can act as a before or after adjunct to the handling of (1) or (2), above.  You could make a thetan less susceptible to (1) or (2), and you could come along after the fact and speed up healing, to the degree that the thetan was preventing it from happening. Your only mistake is to run the incident while it is still going on.  Treat it first.  And don’t get into an allness about auditing and its healing effects.

The mechanism of miracles, using religious relics or tokens, e.g. a saint’s knuckle bone, is a restimulation of the curative abilities of a thetan, if they existed.  That is, the thetan’s idea of his own power is restimulated by demonstrating that there is power somewhere.  nut this is a mental Intervention.  Faith healing restores, momentarily, a thetan’s OT ability to do something with the body.  It has drawbacks, since every now and then, when a body was endowed by thetan A, when thetan B comes along and puts some life into it, it will get sicker.  Some faith healers have not lost the ability to endow life or change the life endowment of a body.

You can look around the eyes and get the stars that you can see surrounding them.  These are little gold balls.  Throw them away and put in your own, and you can get sicker.  Bodies don’t like having their anchor points messed around with or exchanged.  To complete the experiment, throw your gold balls away and get the other ones back.

There are many things that Man didn’t know about beingness or life. Therefore he made fantastic mistakes.  Don’t make these mistakes.  Recognize Man’s limitations relative to this.  Recognize also that they are not your limitations, but that they are Man’s.  Therefore, you need an understanding of states of beingness.  A caved-in thetan is on a reverse.  He is totally the unknowing effect of his own cause.  Anything he can do is being done, but he is not doing it.  He has lost some of his ability to have even that happen. He is totally gone.  So estimate how far down he can go.  He can go down to being the effect of the effect of the effect, etc. of himself.  But this is ‘way beyond his reality, so don’t expect him to got any reality on how he is doing it.

When you get a body animated by a thetan, as opposed to having a body that is merely endowed, you go into a fringe that is well below being oneself or being conscious.  One is sort of automatically awake, automatically existing, with no responsibility for being alive, awake, or existing.  Just below that, you get unconsciousness.  Below where he has a clue that he is conscious, you are getting down to the lower dregs [of thetanhood] and the upper strata of the human race.  The thetan conceives that he is a body: endowed life and no more.  He is a removed something.  He is an identity, a body.  He can be picked up rapidly from there to the state of Grade 0 release:  quite a distance.  A Grade 0 release is less the effect of causes, but he is not up to causative alertness.  He is awake or groggy on an effect basis.  As he improves, he gets to be less the effect. both of his own cause and of others’ cause.  

A guy who is really low down on cause is the effect of anything that occurs anywhere.  He worries about “train wrecks 8000 miles away.”  He could go downscale from that point, so that he doesn’t worry anymore, because he doesn’t exist and isn’t worth anything, so it doesn’t matter what he is the effect of.  He can go down below that into faith:  “I have an automatic regulator of my destiny, so I don’t have to be alert or be concerned about anything, because something somewhere is taking care of me.”  This isn’t necessarily connected with a religion.  People will mock this state up for themselves, without even knowing that they are doing it.  At this point, the thetan is totally irresponsible.  Going downscale from there, he goes into a sort of numbness -- a further release from responsibility.  Below this, he is subject to any number of automaticities, which, if triggered, would produce a total, certifiable insanity.  The majority of the human face is about a quarter of an inch above that.

That is why many people don’t listen to you.  Their state of beingness isn’t up to it.  You must keep the above in mind when asking a wog to look at responsibility.  An individual, asked to look at his mind as a cause or an effect, can get into such anxiety, instead of looking into himself, that he goes frenziedly mad.  Say that we were in an arena.  Someone let in a tiger, and you said to Joe, “Jump over the railing and deal with the tiger.”  He would think that you were joking at first, but if you tried to force him over the railing, you would have a fighting, screaming person on your hands, who would be liable to say most anything.  So it is with the SP, when you get him to look at his mind, e.g. to look at breakfast.  SP’s aren’t trying to disprove scientology.  There is no doubt in their minds that you could make them do things, and the thought terrifies them.  The SP thinks that you are likely to drive him mad.  SP’s think that they are public benefactors who are discrediting scientology so that people won’t have to look at their minds.  An SP is below being able to be the effect of anything, even an automaticity.  So when you bring him upscale, the first thing he has to confront, that he might possibly be the effect of, is the mind, and he goes, “Sting!” He goes a bit insane.  SP’s are below the level of Insanity.  [So they have to come up through a band of insanity.  Cf. R.D. Laing’s idea that the path to sanity is through insanity.] They are below the level of being the effect of anything, good or bad.  Any effect is bad, so they have to be an automatic thing [cause] that has an automatic effect.  Actually, they are a and A’ing with an endowed self.  Your presence, however, can bring them upscale.  You can be up to the point where your ability to endow is on automatic, and you get guys twitching around you.  When you get to OT, that comes under control.

There has [always] been a way up and a road out, but it hasn’t been pursued, because philosophers are thoughtful types.  They are noted for being reasonable and getting themselves martyred.  But few stand up strongly when the firing squad marches down the street.  Voltaire got reasonable.  A breakthrough like this isn’t a scholarly affair.  It has to be done with a “Here goes nothing!” attitude.  To follow up on scientology, a person would either have to be very reassured in a very quiet environment for a considerable period of time, if the person was pretty bad off, i.e.” normal”.  He would have to be calmed down before he could confront something. The percent of people who can confront is the upper one percent of the planet.  When you have the ability to confront, it is possible that you could exert enough influence on the environment (“possible” is a horrible understatement) to calm it down to a point where he could confront and disenturbulate it enough to make gains.  

To handle the insane, you go down to what he can confront:  being still in a still environment, with no one worrying him, with one solid, stable object.  You could let him disenturbulate in this environment.  The psychotic “doesn’t have engrams that make him insane....  He is insane because his ability to confront the environment in his immediate vicinity is so low that he could never possibly take his mind off [his environment] long enough [to look at his mind.  It is] too dangerous.  Just as your super [SP] screams when you tell him to confront his mind, the psychotic screams when you tell him to confront the environment.”  Hence, a quiet environment is the only “cure” for insanity.  “Insanity is a study of environments.  It’s not a study of the mind.”  There is no reason to audit the insane at all.  When the environment is very safe and the individual is no longer actively insane, then, on a very light gradient, you could get him to confront the mind.

Scientology’s problem is not the problem of making one OT.  If clears have trouble communicating with wogs, OT’s have even more trouble.  You could endow a crippled boy’s leg with life and heal it.  This would be OK, unless you tried to explain what happened.  Possibly, he would come upscale to faith, but he would be more likely to go into terror than into faith.

Your main line is the improvement of the being who is willing to be improved.  Doing this, you will get enough improved beings to handle the problems in society that must be handled to snap the society out of being insane.  You don’t want to lift people up by faith, though, but by hope: the hope that maybe some day they could do something about it.  First, you give him the hope that you can do something for him or about it, then that he can do something about himself and “it”.  Then the small hopes materialize.

States of beingness that Man will recognize do include saints, gods, miracle men, and messiahs -- all sorts of beings.  Because Man is familiar with Superman, Batman, etc., he tends to attribute these characteristics to anything that is a step forward for Man.  In the past, they would have attributed the characteristics of saints to scientologists.  In Greek society, it would have been the characteristics of gods.  Man is capable of conceiving of such beings, as long as they are unreal and exterior.  They are OK if looked at through a holy book or something.  “What Man can conceive and what Man can confront are two different things.”  A Catholic priest professes a belief in supernatural phenomena, but what would he do it Christ’s hand suddenly appeared, disembodied, and started turning the pages of his breviary? “Similarly, what a being can conceive he can become and what he can confront being” -- there is a gap between these two things.

We need further definition to distinguish clears and OT’s.  A clear has lost the matter, energy, space, and time connected with a thing called “the mind”.  He is not an all-knowing being.  He moves up through becoming cause over the matter, energy, space, and time of his mind.  An OT is a being who is knowing and willing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space, and time.  That definition doesn’t say, “a mind”.  “Life” includes endowed cells, not only or necessarily other thetans.  The OT may or may not be able to handle another thetan, but he can handle this commodity called “life”.  So there is a big gap between clear and OT.  A clear makes a not-too-aberrated human being almost fly into pieces.  This happens to a minority of people, but it does give an element of fear connected with clears.  You are making people confront something that is somehow a little bit within their ken.  You will not find them tracing the source of it.  It isn’t bad for them.  If they sat around long enough, they would run out all the pictures.  A clear puts “normal people at effect, without trying to do a thing.  He just has a sufficient zone of beingness, that what falls into that zone ... is liable to be ... as-ised ... or go into some sort of action.”  Sometimes people fear clears a little and don’t quite know why they feel that way.  They don’t necessarily associate the feeling with the clear.

Even a Grade IV release can be so much calmer and more at cause than the environment, that his presence can be therapeutic.  So, as you come downscale to a Grade IV release, they stand out rather remarkably, and they are still a little bit out of reach.  As you go downscale from there, you get [a person who is] more able to disseminate, because he more closely matches the reality level of the rest of the environment.  As you go down the release stages, you get closer and closer to an ability to influence another without causing a mess, directly, immediately, understandably, and without restimulation.  The bridge stays in, as a gradient for dissemination.  Even the Book One clear was looked upon with considerable awe.

A Bodhi is probably below a dianetic release.  It is stable for from two seconds to two years.  But Buddhism’s promise to make a Bodhi was enough to civilize three fourths of Asia.  Having moved out of the reality of wogs, the scientologist tends to compare himself with other scientologists.  He is unaware of his state of beingness until he is surrounded by wogs.  That makes him somewhat unhappy in the company of wogs.  As you go up towards clear, this is less true.  If you go out in the wog world as a clear, they don’t spot you as source.  You tend to produce certain phenomena.  You give the impression of being in command even when you don’t do anything to command. People will say, “I have to concentrate to talk to you,” or “You have such a command of the situation,” when nothing is being commanded.  You don’t bother to use this.  Mainly, life becomes easier.

The pity of these states of beingness is that there is a limit to what one being can do for another.  You can do a lot, but you can’t live another’s life for him.  What you can do is:

1.  Provide a safe environment.

2.  Show a way, a methodology.

3.  Provide for the ethical application or administration of methodology.

4.  Give advice.

5.  Pervade the environment with calmness.

6.  Mock up a new leg for a crippled boy.  

But that is the limit.  The rest is up to the other guy.  Unless you lead the person to increase his own beingness, he will never arrive.  This is the point that has been missed in all prior attempts to better Man.  The only “miraculous intervention” there is or ever will be, comes from the person himself.  He must overcome the terror of becoming the effect.  He must be led upwards by an unenturbulated environment to destimulate enough so that he can put his own feet on the road out and walk.  You can help him only with those first steps.  Helping the individual is the only way to help humanity out.  

THE BOOK INTRODUCING THE E METER

Photographed and compiled 
from the lectures and 
demonstrations
of
L. Ron Hubbard

Published
September 1966

The Book Introducing the E-Meter, Volume IV of the Clearing Series, was published at Saint Hill Manor. A new revised edition was published in May, 1975, at Los Angeles.

It contains pictures and explanations of all parts of the E-Meter, inside as well as outside; pictures of how to set it up, how to recharge it, what happens when you move the various knobs in different directions. Tone arm positions and needle actions are illustrated and explained very graphically.

In the latest edition two HCO Bulletins (“False TA” of 24 October 1971, and “False TA Addition” of 12 November 1971 R) have been added, and these give additional valuable data to any auditor who uses an E-Meter—and today that is any student or graduate of any course from the Dianetics Courses upward.

58 pages, 45 photographs, soft-cover with plastic comb binding. Translation available in German. Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1966
Remimeo

MINUS SCALE RELEASES:
ARC STRAIGHT WIRE
DIANETIC

There are several grades of Release below Zero, in the minus scale of the original complete Gradation Chart.

Many of the minus scale can be attained by simple assessment. (And ceasing to assess the moment the release occurs is vital—don’t keep on assessing as the same session auditing action.)

There are three specific grades of Release below Zero and above the lower minus scale. These are, from lowest:

 	Straight Wire Release
  	Dianetic Secondary Release
     	Dianetic Engram Release

Old ARC Straight Wire is not at Grade Zero or Grade III but way down below the Dianetic Releases. The original purpose still holds—to make a person able to run secondaries and engrams. (Our Tech is still valid, you know, despite the 1950 origin of ARC Straight Wire.)

ARC Straight Wire was fantastically effective in moving a person from “neurotic” to “normal” .

But in running ARC Straight Wire one must use a meter and cease to audit the pc the moment the needle goes free. Don’t keep making the blunder of the ‘50s and early ‘60s.

The pc released by ARC Straight Wire can now have secondaries run. When a needle goes free on a secondary, one again must cease to audit secondaries.

The Dianetic Secondary Release can be run on engrams. When the needle goes free while running engrams, one ceases to audit the pc at once.

Declares for these lower release grades can be confirmed by Qual and even declared by Certs and Awards by a small note from the Director of Certs and Awards.

Thus you can possibly get a Release on the minus scale by assessment of the minus scale, a higher Release by running ARC Straight Wire, an even higher one by running Dianetic Secondaries, and yet a higher one by running Dianetic Engrams. And then, by good TRs and standard tech as usual, get a Grade 0.

As many people go Grade 0 Release easily, these lower bands get overlooked. But those who don’t go Grade 0 Release easily (unless it is overrun as the reason for “no Release”) they can be begun by a Minus Scale assessment, then ARC Straight Wire, etc, back up to Zero for another try there.

All pcs could be started on the minus scale with no harm.

QUAL NOTE

Remember, there are several overruns that can require repair. These are:

Life (overrun in a past life on some subject). 
Straight Wire (including Self Analysis). 
Earlier Repetitive Processing (Locational, etc). 
Dianetic Secondaries. 
Dianetic Engrams.

Some cases hang and won’t go Release at Grade 0 unless the above are rehabbed or (if never run) actually audited on the pc.

ARC Breaks can cause a failure to go Release on Grade Zero or any other level and can prevent rehabs. And poor TRs can block the lot.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
								Founder 

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1966

Remimeo
ARC BREAK NEEDLE

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

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:lb-r.cden 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1966
Remimeo

THE ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY
THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST

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

Such people are known to have anti-social tendencies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTRIBUTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such people make trouble for others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. 	The anti-social cannot finish a cycle of action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BASIC REASON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELIEF

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SOCIAL PERSONALITY

Man in his anxieties is prone to witch hunts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The social personality has a majority of social characteristics.

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

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

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

1. 	The social personality is specific in relating circumstances. “Joe Jones said...” “The Star Newspaper reported...” and gives sources of data where important or possible.
He may use the generality of “they” or “people” but seldom in connection with attributing statements or opinions of an alarming nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BASIC MOTIVATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 OCTOBER 1966
Issue IV
Remimeo
Tech Hats
Quay Hats
Students
EXAMINATIONS

A student must not discuss any examination with anyone outside the Qualifications Division. To give examination information to other students in order to assist them shows a misguided understanding of help. A student should pass an examination on the basis that he does know and can apply the data, not on the basis that he knows and can pass the examination. Only by being able to know and apply the data can a student be an accomplished auditor at any Level.

Therefore, students are not to discuss examinations with other students for whatever reason.

Further, students who fail examinations or any question thereon are not to discuss such failure or reasons for such with anyone other than the personnel of the Qualifications Division. This regulation includes not only other students, but Course Supervisors. Data as to examination failures is supplied from the Qualifications Division to the Technical Division, and a student, not knowing the data sufficiently well, can cause Dev-T by reporting false data to a Course Supervisor as to why the examination was failed.

Any student who feels that he has been incorrectly failed on an examination can report the matter to Ethics. This is the proper line for any complaint the student may have concerning an examination, if such still seems incorrect after taking it up with the Qualifications Division.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:rd
Copyright © 1966
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 

6611C01 SHSpec-81 Government and Organization

A good government is in the realm of invention at this point.  Man is so afraid of a bad turn in a benign monarchy that he can’t have one.  He is afraid of an SP getting into power.  Also, a benign monarch can’t wear all of his hats.  What makes a government bad is that it gets an SP into it.  One SP breeds others, as an SP wants other SP’s around him.  Generals that advocate wars of attrition are SP’s.  They are just trying to knock off as many troops as possible.  The best military training is to do the most in the least time at the least expense, and to keep your own people from being banged up.  The objective is to win.  That is the proper conduct of war.  You also want to inflict the least possible damage to the enemy, because you will have to put the enemy back together again if you win.  This is a proper war.  But the last four wars were wars of attrition.

All governments consist of a body of beings against the individual.  The better a government is, the less against the individual and the more for the individual it is.  Total suppression exists where the government is everything and the individual is nothing.  The opposite extreme can be equally suppressive: Anarchy, where the individual is everything and the government is nothing.  In an anarchy, any bum or suppressive is totally at liberty to knock anyone on the head.

There is no perfect government.  The individual is as close as you will get to a perfect entity.  Why do you need a government?  Because any organization can win over individuals.  We thetans got to where we are today because we didn’t organize as a body of thetans.  Instead, we let the bad guys organize into a body to get us.  This is the only big omission on the track. OT’s didn’t handle it on their own feet.  Any group of organized humanoids can defeat any OT.  However, this requires that one know something about the laws of organization.  Without an organization, the individual would have to maintain constant vigilance, because he only has to lose one battle to lose everything.

You want an org that is minimally restrictive and maximally effective. In a benign monarchy, the individual doesn’t have to have much say, because everything is taken care of.  When you turn over the government to a group, however, confidence in the government is shaken and the individual must have a say.  Of course you don’t let individuals make all the decisions.  This would lead to a clown government.  No individuals can all know enough to be meaningfully involved in every little thing.  There never has been a democracy.  The Greeks never had a democracy.  Just fifty landowners formed a senate.  The senators didn’t even represent anyone.  Therefore, it was not even a republic.

Republicanism is a mean between the extremes.  If you make proper qualifications necessary for the holding of office, e.g.  that a person not be below Grade IV, that person and other similar ones, forming a senate, being specialists in the issues at stake, could be sufficiently informed and have enough time to think about it to actually govern.  So if scientology took over, you would have a republican government.

After you have chosen the governor, he is free to govern, without any “Yak! Yak!”, unless some weighty issue comes up for a referendum, e.g. a change in the status quo or in the form of government.  

England’s failure to allow the American colonies representation in Parliament was an error in tech that caused a rift.  When a group feels that it can’t be heard, it ARC breaks.  This is the sort of ARC break that always precedes a war.  Hitler said something that wasn’t acknowledged, and vice versa.  So thirty million men were killed.  In emergency situations, a benign monarch is the best system.  There is no time to consult anyone anyway.  But in time, a benign monarch gets tired and overworked, and he can’t acknowledge everybody who speaks.  So, unless he gets backed up by a representative body, you get a dissolution of the organization.  The nominal head of the organization should be out of the way, except in an emergency, while the country is run by a representative body corporate.  Such a body has great liabilities.  There is a lack of total responsibility [to the constituents], so individuals in the group don’t think fast enough.  Therefore it is best not to have a generalized body corporate running the government.  It must be specific in its representation, unlike the pattern of a board of directors. Each member of a board of directors nebulously represents “the stockholders”. However, here, there is cross-representation.  This generality goes into suppression.  If “the people” are represented, then they could [logically] only be represented by one person.  That is why a benign monarchy works. There is no cross-representation.  But as soon as the monarch gets a body of advisors, that doesn’t represent the people.  More than one representative would have to represent exact segments of the population.  When too many people are represented by one person, the distance becomes too great, and the people feel unrepresented.  But if they can communicate with their representative and get action, they feel that their governmental hat is well taken care of, so they can relax.  The U.S. has two senators per state.  This violates the above principle of representation.  Electoral districts, however, do have direct representation.  There is a further representation in state government, which can receive [certain] orders from the federal government. The U.S. government, however, has no representative in Colorado.  It only has covert agencies there.  The Colorado state assembly cannot address the U.S. Government.  There is no direct line from the state assembly to the U.S. assembly or the Senate.

Before you can have a governmental system [that is any good], you have to have the tech of scientology to detect and improve abilities in people and ethics tech to detect suppressives.  You also need the communication formula, ARC triangle, ARC break tech, etc.

If the people have a senator, why have a representative? The outcome is that the individual states and the U.S. government are in violent conflict. Hence the Civil War.  When these comm lines don’t exist, an individual goes into apathy.  You get a dictatorship of “the people” vs. the individual.  Or you get a situation where every man is the dictator.  Representation can be pretty big, because not everyone appeals at once.  But if everyone does appeal at once, then the representative had better do something fast.  War is caused by incompetent government, which causes a breakdown in the comm line between a [constituent] group and the society that surrounds it.  The society that surrounds it may be so incompetently governed that the inner group has to be nearly perfect to work its way forward.  Scientology has this quality.  We also keep trying to be better, at least whenever there is a down statistic.  

In scientology, there are lots of built-in safeguards in the system, so there is no immediate need for elective representation In the future, elections will be required, when scientology gets bigger.  Then exact representation will occur.  No junior governing body may be given orders by any senior governing body, in which it is not represented.  Conversely, very senior governing bodies should not give orders to junior governing bodies, from which they do not have a representative.  That ensures a two-way communication situation.

The Advisory Council.  The International Advisory Council would be made up of representatives of continental parts of the world and executives who represent types of divisions of orgs.  It would have about fifteen members. Rule: No one may initiate a motion unless that motion has been formed into an issuable directive.  If a person wants a policy letter framed, he must write it up.  Rule: The chairman is given the power of absolute veto, unless three quarters of those present vote to continue discussion or voting.  This will prevent endless hobby-horsing.  A proposal could be referred for special study elsewhere, to be brought up later.  This way, point of origin of policy letters is stated, since that person wrote up the policy letter before it was passed.

Members of the International Advisory Council represent the continental Advisory Councils, but they also represent all orgs on that continent. Therefore, someone from part of that continental area who feels that he is being done in, or something, could write to his representative in the international body.  As the system expands out, the individual would find out that he had a representative in his local continental body.

A member of the ad council, on majority signatures, can get an urgent directive out on short notice, provided a B. of I. is convened later to determine if it was the right action.  Unless a policy change occurs, an ad council directive is only in effect for a year, unless a policy letter is issued.  The purpose of this rule is to prevent arbitrary laws from being arbitrarily introduced needlessly.

The advisory council has representatives from five continental areas plus one from St. Hill and a divisional organizer [for each division].  He represents every divisional secretary of that division in the whole world. His job is to compile all the materials and specifications.  It is too much work for such a person to do this and hold another hat at the same time.  So if a person can’t get books, for instance, he would write the Div 2 divisional organizer.  If the stat of the divisional organizer is down, he would get into being an authority.  He can get militant in the ad council.  The ad council can then issue what the divisional organizer has already written up in advance.  It is issued on the flash color of that division, and it applies only to that division.  The Divisional organizer is not operating those orgs, so he does not act as a bypass of the OES of those orgs.

Conversely, we will have the St. Hill or WW representative in continental ad councils.  LRH comm can also serve this purpose.  He has no authority, but he can be talked to, and he can explain what WW is doing.

Every divisional secretary in orgs becomes a member of the ad council [for that org].  The LRH comm is also on that org’s ad council, to represent HCO.  Thus we get an eight-man ad council.

Sooner or later, we will need a representative of the ad council in each of the divisions [of the org].

With a continental org that has three other orgs plus itself, you get four ad councils, composed of secretaries and exec secs.    Thus, you get a ten-man ad council, [composed of the seven divisional heads, plus the LRH Comm, plus the OES plus the HAS.] Each junior org would have to have a representative in the senior org.

We are dealing with basic ethics and organizational tech.

It really helps to have all beings in the org cross-policed by stats. Stats don’t ever “happen”.  They are always made, and you have got to find out what is making them.  In a downstat situation, the errors are always gross. The greatest source of downstats is: no personnel on the-post at all.

If you get a stuck flow going on for too long, with no return flow, you get an apathy on the other end.  [Cf. the S.O. 1 Line] People want to talk to LRH to find out if he is there.  It is to get the back-flow going.  The main problem is in the relationship between the individual and the corporate body. A corporate body that can’t act swiftly will cause a lot of upset.  A situation where any citizen can clobber the corporate body is equally suppressive, because that person will also clobber other individuals.  The problem is to set up something that resolves the relationship between the corporate body and the individual.

1.  The individual must be able to get justice from the corporate body.

2.  He is entitled to bright management.

3.  The corporate body can expect contribution and compliance from the individual.  All it takes to make an organization is to avoid violating these.  When you get the consent of the people and respect for the government, the thing will go on and on.

On other planets, Empire selection of governors was based on state of case.

When you put in a government, put in a review of that government.  This happened to some extent in the U.S. with amendments to the constitution, but no one reported back to the original body that created the government.

A governed people who do not understand the theories or postulates of the government or the laws, can be pretty dismayed and confused.  They are afraid that the relationship between the government and the individual will not be safeguarded.  They may even be represented and don’t know it.

6611C29 SHSpec-82 “OT” and “Clear” Defined

A majority of scientology’s major executives are now clear.  LRH noticed that the statistics of divisions were in roughly the same range as the case state of their heads.

We have tried to put together a scientology dictionary.  It requires work from LRH to make sure that the definitions are complete.  He will take students’ requests on cards and define the words.

OT 

Operating Thetan.  “Operating” means “Manipulating, handling”.  You operate a car, etc.  Also, oneself can operate; one is operative.  “Thetan” is from the Greek letter, theta, traditionally used to mean thought.  The letter “n” is added to “theta” to make the noun, “thetan”.  We mean by “thetan” “A life unit ... a being.  An individual who is alive and who is capable of thinking [and being] -- a spirit inhabiting the body.”  In Greek times, theta was the thought in a person, as opposed to his body.  The thetan inhabits the “clay” and moves it around.  To that degree, anyone who can move is operating as a thetan.  But “OT” means someone who “can operate without a body....  A being who is cause over thought life, matter energy, space and time.”  Someone who is being cause is being “a source of action or impulse,” as in cause-distance-effect.  This state is quite different from the state of clear.  It is someone who can operate without the encumbrances of the common clay.  There are degrees of operation.

Wog.  A “common, everyday garden-variety humanoid....  He ‘is’ a body. [He] doesn’t know he’s there,” etc.  He isn’t there as a spirit at all.  He is not operating as a thetan.  The term comes from “Worthy Oriental Gentleman”, from the days of the British in Egypt.  A humanoid is one who has human characteristics, by which we do not mean that he is human in his treatment of things.  He isn’t.  It is simply that he is a body.  He isn’t there as a spirit at all.  He will develop a philosophy that says that everything is matter, including the self.  Wog is not the bottom end of the scale, which would include psychotic, neurotic, catatonic, etc.  This would be someone who didn’t even know that he was MEST.  OT isn’t the top end of the scale, either.  At the top, you would have a harmonic of the wog: “a thetan who didn’t have to operate ... at all,” in an almost unattainable absolute, outside of MEST altogether, so he would be serene, calm, and dissociated with the physical universe -- not in the time-stream.  Someone at the bottom of the scale is the effect of everything.  He has to cause everything and can cause nothing.  Someone at the top would be potentially able to cause everything, but wouldn’t have to.  But this is a no-game condition, and thetans are idiotic enough to like to have a game going.  A PTP exists when one has to do something about something.  When audited thoroughly, a person is no longer affected by the problem.  Similarly, in Serenity, one doesn’t have to do anything about it.  But one of the native characteristics of a thetan is messing around.  He gets bored at Tone 40.  So just below 40.0, you get OT.

At the beginning of the universe, the thetan was potentially omniscient and omnipotent, but he had no experience and knew nothing.  He was pretty stupid.  When you put someone back to the state of OT, you are putting somebody back who is different from anyone else on the track.  He is operating with experience.  When we say, “OT”, we mean “clear OT”.  A released OT is someone who is exterior and feeling great; feeling powerful.  For just plain OT, we can just call it “exterior”.  There has hitherto never been anything but a released OT.  There are two parallel lines:.

1.  How much is someone out of his bank?   and     2.  How much less bank does he have?

Using techniques developed in 1952, you can bang nearly anyone out of his head.  He then exhibits the characteristics of a being who is not influenced by a body.  This state can last a third of a second, or it can last three hundred years.  It will make someone sane who is insane, but since one has aberrations as a being, not just as a body, exteriorizing doesn’t get rid of all his aberrations.
Gautama Siddhartha was exteriorizing people in 523 B, making a state called “Bodhi”.  We can make a Bodhi (a Buddha) in thirty seconds.  The Lamas in Tibet developed practices to assist exteriorization.  When the Lamas couldn’t exteriorize people, they redefined “Bodhi” to mean someone who was calm, refined, serene and had benign conduct.  It is the mental mass that prevents exteriorization.  This mass is a composite of the thetan’s own pictures and aberrations that pins him to the body.  Some people are harder to exteriorize than others.  

It is the mental mass called “the mind”, with its pictures and masses, that prevents some people from exteriorizing.  A thetan exterior is simply outside a body.  This happens inevitably at death.  It is only the worry about getting a body that makes a thetan unhappy.  An operating thetan is a thetan exterior who can have, but doesn’t have to have, a body, in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space, and time.

Nirvana was added to Buddhistic doctrine at a later date.  The original idea was just to get away from the continual cycle of rebirth.  There is no goal to operate in Buddhism, however.

Someone who is a thetan exterior but not clear or OT may be in very bad shape.  He may barely be able to get to a maternity ward.  He has no power of choice over what body he gets.  Etc.  And sometimes, a thetan suddenly regains his OT abilities, without knowing how he did it.  This is quite rare.  It frightens observers.  Suleiman, in The Arabian Nights, produced a big scare about thetans.  [LRH describes the embarrassment of the thetan in a battle, who hasn’t noticed that his body has been killed, and who just keeps hewing away at the enemy on the battlements, until he notices that what he thinks is his sword goes through the enemy without touching them.  Then he looks down in the mud and sees his old body.] A very aberrated OT could exist.  He might accidentally discover that he can move MEST, make sound, etc.  He is liable to do most anything, because he is operating automatically.  He is not able to control these manifestations.  E.g. he may produce poltergeist phenomena. This would be a released OT.  Those beings can be upset.  This is a higher-scale wog amongst thetans.

It is also possible to be exterior, knowingly, but unable to move anything or cause things.  One eventually gets tired of this and wants a new body.  Previous released OT’s had no one with whom to associate.  A person who went thetan exterior had no hope of anything else.  He had a shut track. Therefore the game of being a body became functional.  Actually, an OT could mock up a body out of whole cloth.  How else do you have a body?  An OT like the above, with or without the ability to move objects, is not a clear OT.  He is a released OT, since he doesn’t understand his state or what he is doing. But the scientology definition of OT is clear OT.  “A clear OT knows what [he has done and what he] is doing....  He is a clear who can operate like Billy-O.”  

CLEAR

“A thetan without a bank,” in or out of a body.  The source of the bank, the being himself.  He is making himself the unknowing and unwilling effect of his own bank.  He is causing himself to receive, unwillingly and unknowingly, the effect of his own bank.  The person compulsively makes up pictures.  When he is bad off, all he’s got is a blanked-out picture, a black mass that covers up the picture, or pressure that crowds the picture into oblivion.  [The Black Five.] Below that, you get random pictures that flick by on automatic.  The word, “bank” is taken from electronic computer terminology, meaning a card system, a file system.  The machine pulls out certain data cards and puts them into operation or computation in the machine, so that the machine can solve problems.  The bank-bound thetan is peculiarly affected by and operates on banks.  “There is no such thing as a crazy thetan.  There is a thetan who is mocking up craziness that he is the effect of.”  Otherwise, there would be no hope.  You can ask a guy with a fixed picture or a chronic picture, “What part of that could you be responsible for?” This is a good process for the guy who doesn’t know that he has a mind.  Someone can be so not-ised that he isn’t aware that he has a mind.  The level of not believing in a mind is below the level of not being able to see the mind, or pictures.  Above being able to see the mind is not having one.  “All [mental] masses do is not furnish you with data as they seem to do but charge the area of the data up, so that you can’t directly recall it, and you get hit ... by the picture [or mass], and you think the picture is giving you the data.  So therefore you ‘mustn’t get rid of the picture,’ because if you got rid of the picture, then you ‘wouldn’t have the data.’ ... This is silly, because if you didn’t have the picture, then you could recall it all,” without consequences.  A clear doesn’t have a mind, in that he is not the effect of this picture mechanism. But the clear still has the MEST universe around, and he still uses a body that isn’t very strong and is made of cells that aren’t invulnerable.  So the fact that a person is clear doesn’t say that he won’t get sick, because there are such things as bacteria and viruses, and the body has finite strength.  It is idiotic to measure a clear by his health.

When a clear exteriorizes, he may be a clear exterior, unable to talk, etc., like a baby having to learn to walk.  The state is stable, since he has no bank to snap him in again.  When a person is clear, he can more easily become exterior.

[There are 140 clears as of this date, according to LRH.]

Getting someone from clear to OT is a job of proofing him up, so that even if he mocked up a bank, he wouldn’t be the effect of it.  A cleared OT is a proofed-up being who won’t hit the banana peel.  You could probably fix up a clear exterior so he would go exterior to the physical universe.  You could use a command like, “Try not to be outside the physical universe.”  This would make him exterior from the universe, but that would be unstable until he was no longer at effect relatively to the physical universe.  He would be unstable, since he is still the effect of MEST, life, and thought.  But a person who can be at cause over something is not necessarily at total effect of it.  That doesn’t mean, however, that he has nothing to do with it. Because you can fix a car is no reason why you can’t enjoy one.

Our adversary is the complexity of the “wisdom” of the ages, suppressed and combined to keep people from doing it.  It takes a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to face this sort of thing.  There is nothing mild about the way course supervisors continue [to do their job].

There is “probably a greater distance between clear and OT than between wog and clear.”

A clear OT is “a walking miracle who ... comprehends the miracle.” So knowing and willing cause is part of the definition of OT.  It is not an accidental or automatic state.  You get to a point where you can turn automaticities on and off.  Doing it on an unknowing basis is far inferior.

“If this crosses up your own reality in any way, shape, or form, by all means don’t [change] your own reality.  Just run your auditing question!”  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 NOVEMBER 1966
Tech Hats
Auditors
Level IV
Students

ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE FACSIMILES

The location of service facsimiles requires a proper listing question, the absence of which can lead to missing the actual service fac or overrunning a lower release grade.

Of the assessment methods, the following should probably be ruled out as an overrun of earlier grades or on the basis of getting a free needle on a previous grade:

1. 	Slow assessment with ITSA (overrun Grade 0)

2. 	Assessment by problems (overrun Grade 1)

3. 	Assessment by parts of existence (overrun Grade 0)

This leaves as acceptable methods:

1. 	“In this lifetime, what do you use to make others wrong?”

2. 	“In this lifetime, what do you think your service facsimile is?”

      	(for a Scientologist trained to Level IV)

3.	“In this lifetime, what would be a safe solution to .....?” (the blank having been obtained by questions given on the tapes to find either a hidden  standard or hidden problem).

4. 	Assessment of a prepared list, using level found, in “In this lifetime, what have you ......(prehav level)?”

The point being not to start out at the beginning by listing a question which OBVIOUSLY WILL NOT RESULT IN FINDING A SERVICE FAC, in which instance the rule of declaring the grade on a floating needle obtained on the list could not possibly apply.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:jp.cden 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6612C06 SHSpec-83 Scientology Definitions [Part] II

For the first time in known history, there is ethics.  You can’t lie to do people in [and get away with it, in scientology].  People who protest ethics say, “Who determines who is suppressive?” That is easy.  Suppressives have definite characteristics.  This universe got formed and is going to pieces on suppression.  “An organized minority is all that has been making this universe a mess.”  It could have been a good universe.  But ethics would have had to go in early.  And because thetans were acting as individuals and suppression was organized, all we have to do is reverse it, so that thetans, without forgoing independence, can organize the other side just a little bit. We are eventually going to become an organized majority.  We already have numerical superiority.  Also, they can’t think straight.  We have no overt intentions towards suppressives.  We are just trying to go about our business.  But “you yourself should not ... go out of your way to obtain amusement by the torturing of SP’s simply because their valence is there to slip into.  “The mocking up of suns is far more fun.”  But when you do it, do a good job!”  

ANALYTICAL MIND

This could be “anything that a thetan set up, which collected data and used it to resolve problems.”  The basic purpose of the “mind” is “the resolution of problems relating to survival.  Now if a thetan does this, you could say he is a mind....  An analytical mind cannot exist independent of a thetan.”  Man has been so caved in, on the subject of the reactive mind, which he knew not wot of, of which he was not aware, that he now discredits the whole idea of a mind.  He says, “I’ll just do it all myself.”  

REACTIVE MIND

A reactive mind is “an unwanted, unknowing series of computations which bring about an effect on the individual and those around him.”  It contains things like the computation, “All horses sleep in beds.”  It is an obsessive stratum of unknown, unseen, uninspected data that is forcing solutions, unknown and unsuspected, on the person.  It is a sub-awareness activity.  An analytical mind could be of use to an operating thetan.  It could exist if it was a knowing and willing mechanism.  For instance, much of dianetics and scientology was resolved by the construction of philosophical machines: something you would draw up which would give some data that you could then combine with some other data and get some answer.  But you are setting down and lining up the data.  You are just “doing a think which is recorded ... so that you can knowingly observe a relationship of data and get an answer.... So an analytical mind [is] a knowing and willing resolution of problems related to survival.”  This can get you in trouble, when it is of lasting duration, when it is set up to run forever without inspection and observation.  An analytical mind cannot exist without inspection and observation.  An astronomical computer being operated by a competent scientist could be likened to the analytical mind.  But without inspection and observation, an analytical mind would become reactive.  The reactive mind is like the opposite of the analytical mind.  It is like a computer that, uninspected, picks up the data to resolve problems that had not been suspected, and turns out answers that, uninspected, then by law become a total effect upon a population. [I.e., to avoid reactivity, you must retain the option of total monitoring.] A total circuit, like an automatic elevator, may still be analytical if it can be inspected.  

The human body falls into the class of machines that operate without understanding.  Such a machine, where a thetan does not know how or why it operates, is reactive.  The fellow who is there doesn’t know when it is going to get sick or quit.  The body line is running uninspected, and it is aberrative.  It has reactions and effects upon the thetan that he cannot predict.  It is an aberrative machine because it is running uninspected.  It has no instruction book.  This is a major omission.  Beware of buying bodies without directions in them!

So willingness and inspection is what makes the difference between the analytical and the reactive minds.  The difference between dianetics and scientology is that one [scientology] increases the awareness of the thetan and the other [dianetics] just erases the bank.  The trouble you run into in disseminating comes from people’s lack of awareness of the reactive mind.  You have to show it to them.  If you handle a person’s reactive mind directly, you get the situation where the person was not aware that he had lumbosis and is not now aware that it is gone.  The way you handle a reactive mind is to increase the thetan’s awareness of it so he can control it.  It ceases to be reactive.  When you are talking about the analytical and the reactive mind, you are talking about the awareness level of the individual.

Only the reactive mind is opposed to the thetan.  The analytical mind is “a mind that is temporarily set up, willingly and knowingly, to assist in the resolution of problems.  Problems inevitably relate to survival.  And anything he’s set up to do this of which he was aware and which was inspected [would be included under the rubric of ‘analytical mind’].”  A committee set up to get data and to coordinate the activities of another area or body -- of a factory or something like that -- would be the mind of that factory, even though they are thetans doing it.  In fact, they would have to be thetans doing it, for it to be analytical.

One of the reasons why you should know policy is that otherwise the solutions and combinations, unknown to you, make it have an effect on you, because it is somewhat reactive.  If policy isn’t inspected and reformed to meet the condition of operation, it too would become a reactive mind, as with U.S. government law.  From the point of view of the society, scientology is a somewhat reactive mind, to the degree that they are not aware of our existence or our effect.  If scientology had evil intentions, it would be very easy to operate on a sub-rosa level.  However, it would be bad for the planet, on the whole.  It is hard anyway for society, at its low awareness level, to be aware of scientology.  It is likewise hard for them to be aware of a thetan.  A thetan should probably go by the rule, “Never explain.”  Don’t feel that you need to explain your motives to others, when you don’t intend to hide them. Their level of awareness of you is already so low that explaining won’t help at all.  After all, they can’t tell your motives!  Be as obvious, plain, and straightforward as you like, but “if the ordinary evidences which lie around them don’t justify your actions, then there’s no sense in explaining it to the person who’s challenging them....  He wouldn’t be able to understand them anyway.”  Any analytical mind can become a reactive mind.  So setting up an analytical mind is always dangerous, to some degree.  

POWER

The amount of force that can be applied in a unit of time.  [Actually, the physical definition states that power is the amount of work that can be accomplished in a unit of time.] Power has the connotation of being potential, unlike force, which is actual.  Power doesn’t necessarily mean the use of force.  Power is not exerted, whereas force tends to be.  Therefore a person is powerful when he is able to use force, not when he is or isn’t using force. But if he is forceful, he is using force right now.  The smarter a person gets, the less he employs force to get others to change their opinions, etc.  

IMPLANT

“Unwilling, unknowing receipt of a think.”  An implant is “an intentional wreck of somebody’s ability to make pictures, perceive, and remember.  It’s intentional! ... An intentional installation of fixed ideas contra-survival to the thetan.”  In an implant, someone is intentionally giving the thetan perceptions and ideas.  All hypnotism is, is a restimulation of past implants.  

ENGRAM

“Those perceptions unknowingly contained in the force, duress, pain, and unconsciousness of an incident.”  This is not the same as an implant [because it is not necessarily intentional, for one thing].  Intent is the difference. The person makes a mental image picture by his reaction to an experience.  He goes, “Out!  Stop it!” In the process of doing this, “he’s made a sort of a stuck wave,” because he didn’t prevent it.  And just as you would make an embossed impression of something, he embosses the environment.  If you were to press your hand against a brick for a split second, you would have a picture of the brick, and, a moment or so later, you would have the indentations of the brick, because you pushed something at the brick.  Similarly, if you pull on a rope, you make an impression.  [This would be analogous to a secondary.] The thetan pushes back against what is pushing him, or he pulls in against what is leaving him.  It is at the point where he resisted the motion most that he gets stuck.  A thetan can make and exert energy.  When he tries to fend something off [or hold something in], he pushes [or pulls] back against something.  He gets a picture of the moment when his resistance was great. That could be an engram, [secondary, lock,] or implant.  

PROBLEM

 Intention / counter-intention, goal / counter-goal, or purpose / counter-purpose.  

GOALS PROBLEM MASS

The GPM is so named, because “when there are two intentions counter-opposed, [one] has a problem [and the opposed forces or goals] tend to produce mass.  The Russians’ statement of this is Dialectic Materialism -- that all ideas are born out of the meeting of two forces.  [That is] backwards.  When two ideas [oppose each other] they create force....  That shows you where they are on the [tone] scale: If you hit a guy hard enough, he’ll think.”  [GPM’s consist of pairs of opposing ideas.] Two opposing ideas produce a mass.  “The thetan cannot as-is either side.”  Hence, the mass remains.  The mass of a GPM is mental energy mass, but it can be in the physical universe, too.  

PAN-DETERMINISM and SELF-DETERMINISM

Pan-determinism is the ability to see or as-is both sides [of a conflict or problem].  If “one is totally pan-determined, he has no mental mass, because he’s seen both sides of everything.  He can see two ideas at once, even though they are opposed.”  Self-determinism is laudable, because it is rare.  But it is not as good as pan-determinism.  If a guy justifies what he does, you know immediately that he is self-determined, not pan-determined. This is the quickest test there is.  A wholly reactive person “will oppose any idea put to him.”  

A conservative or reactionary tends to be against everything you propose.  So if you give him his own ideas, you give him a problem, because his first impulse is to be against them. [Cf. symptom prescription and the Interpersonalists.] This is such a horrible thing to do that it is normally looked upon as fightin’ words, like, “You think you’re pretty good, don’t you?” You have made the guy resist his own ideas.  The above type of person is on a lower-scale mockery of pan-determinism.  He can carry out a raging argument with a second person that doesn’t say a word the whole time, like, “Well, you’re going to say....  And you think....  But ... !” There is no ability of a thetan that doesn’t have a lower-scale mockery or exaggeration.  

EMOTION

“A response by a wavelength affecting as individual or another, which produces a sensation and a state of mind.”  

INTENTION

Something which one wishes or intends to do.  It is an impulse towards something.  It is “an idea that one is going to accomplish something....  He means to do it.”  

AFFINITY

Affinity “has nothing to do with [emotion].  It’s the ability to occupy the space of or be like or similar to, or to express a willingness to be something.”  “I like you,” means “I would just as soon be you.  I would just as soon occupy your space.” When two individuals don’t like each other, they won’t occupy each other’s space or viewpoint.  They don’t want to be like the other person, etc.  A dissimilarity must exist.  When this becomes sufficiently strong, a person “enforcedly becomes like the other fellow,” which is an overwhelm.  

HOME UNIVERSE

“The universe a thetan made for himself.”  Here we find the Rock, which we audited for and assessed out, meaning a shape of something on which we could then run a process.  We had, in the past, a theory that it was the first object on the track that the fellow had made.  We would run five-way help on it and make a fast, stable release of a very high order.  

RELIGION

Religion “means, basically, the search for truth.”  

DED-DEDEX

A deduced something or other.  “It means that the overt-motivator sequence went backwards.  A ded-dedex is the overt-motivator sequence wrong-way to.  So that you hit Joe, and then he hits you.  That’s a ded-dedex.  The original connotation was [that] although it went this way, you had it figured out that he must have hit you first, so you invented something that he did to you to motivate your hitting him.  It’s a phony overt-motivator sequence.” It is what a guy does to justify an unmotivated overt.  “It means, ‘The overt act explained.’”  The fact of having hit someone without provocation plus a means of explaining having hit him is the ded-dedex.  After you commit the first action, you invent something to explain it.  [Ded-dedex -- Deed-deed explained.]  

SOMATIC MIND

This idea was “added to the First Book by Donald H. Rogers, [John W. Campbell, and the publisher].”  I found it in the glossary, so there it is. It’s “the mind that runs the body, independent of” [the body and the reactive mind.] It is a physical coordination switchboard system.  In view of the fact that we don’t know how it runs, we really have no business declaring the existence of a mind that we don’t really know about.

(The early introduction to DMSMH -- with the part about the wheel and the arch -- describes the book.  Its first line was written by Walter Winchell and the rest was written by the publisher.)  

ANCHOR POINT

Something the thetan put out to make space.  

BUTTERED ALL OVER THE UNIVERSE

“Very badly disoriented and dispersed.”  When someone in this case condition is asked to spot spots where he is (An improper process.  The proper process is to have him spot spots where he is not.), he will point all over the universe.  This is the reaction of this very dispersed case to this question, from which this term is taken.  He will think that he is everywhere.  It is an “I’m over there” case.  Perhaps this condition comes from leaving anchor points all over the place and appearing in one or another of these points.  

TIGER DRILL

“One of the drills ... that ... has been adequately discussed in bulletins.”  It uses “tiger” as a non-reactive word.    

COMPUTATION

To figure out.  2 x 2 = 4.  

COMPUTING PSYCHOSIS

“One who, from his psychosis, figure-figures.  He’s inconstant in his conduct.  He’s computive....  He’s got ... crazy explanation....  He’s obsessively solving a problem that doesn’t exist.”  

DRAMATIZING PSYCHOTIC

“One patterned action which is insane [and which the person] runs over and over....  When he is] not doing that particular [action, the dramatizing psychotic is remarkably sane.  [He is consistent in his conduct.]”  

ARBITRARY

“Something introduced into the situation without regard to the data of the situation.  ‘Arbitrary’ means ‘stand alone’.” Someone says, “X must be done,” or “X is true.”  If that is introduced without observation, without any refutation [of what was there previously], into a formula, situation, admin action, of line, it will cause a ripple.  This ripple then needs to be solved, so someone else will introduce an arbitrary solution to the introduced arbitrary.  “It leads to further arbitraries being introduced to handle resultant outnesses.”  This is the “stuck five [held down five]” phenomenon. An urgent action may be an arbitrary, as in the tech of handling an urgent directive.  This must be replaced by something based on observed fact.  It is only in force until data can be gotten.  An example of an arbitrary would be an education that a boy never understood, like an education without a purpose.  

HARMONICS

Any wavelength action or scale has reverberations, up and down, by doubles or halves.  “In the field of art, it means ‘agreement with’....  In scientology, ... upper harmonics [refers to] well-off cases.’  In scientology, it means a similarity or repetition of something at a higher or lower point on a scale.  A lower harmonic is a lower similarity which is nutty, related to a higher harmonic.  This is “based on the tendency of a wavelength to repeat itself....  The lower you go in terms of awareness, the more weird the repetition is....  In music, it means a co-action or similar action,” like resonating strings.  For instance, a lower harmonic of figuring out a math table is doodling.  It is a similar action but less aware.  Therefore harmonics apply to the awareness scale.  The term “lower-scale mockery” expresses the idea of harmonics more usefully, for our purposes.  Ridicule is based on this.  You can feel that your ideas are crazy, even if they are not, if you hear them expressed or “mocked”, by a nut or a “true believer”.  [Like a caricature.] I was trying to figure out what to do with the org.  I was trying to figure out what England would do by trying to figure out what she should do to straighten things out politically.  I was trying to figure out which way this was going to go, to figure out if I should expand the organization or whether to enter dollars into the country or hold them out. And I ran into a guy outside the door, who said that he was Disraeli and was going to help England.  

6612C13 SHSpec-84 Scientology Definitions -- [Part] III

Scientology is an extension of the work of Gautama Siddhartha, 2500 years ago.  Gautama sought to end the cycle of death and rebirth, by showing an individual that he was a spirit, not dependent on bodies.  We accomplished his goal of exteriorizing people more successfully in 1952, but the wisdom of Buddhism was enough to civilize three-fourths of Asia.  It is the oldest and biggest religion on this planet.  It predates Christianity by 500 years. “Probably the shreds of [Buddhism came] into the Middle East with [the] silk and spice merchants, [who, following Alexander’s ventures to India in about 333 B, discovered that there was a Europe and] made a trade contact with Europe.  This sparked a religious revival.  “Buddha predicted that in 2500 years, the entire job would be finished in the West.  That’s in the Pali Canons.  Well, we finished it....  Buddha never pretended to be other than just a man,” and his movement, the first international religious movement, was open to anyone.  Buddhism “has moved, ... in its technology, not one inch further than it was pushed in Tibet, until 1952,” when we started exteriorizing people.  “The essence of religion [is the fact that] Man is a spiritual being.”  All religions hold this in common, but “only in Buddhism was this ever proven.”

Any forward push like Buddhism runs into SP’s who are afraid that if you got better, you might knock them off or at least stop their games.  “The basic goal of psychiatry today is to wipe out religion.  They say, ‘Anyone who is religious is psychotic.’”  If they succeed in knocking out our church, they will go after bigger ones.  This is “really all that it’s all about.  As long as religion brings solace to Man, ... as long as churches stand, in any way, for the spiritual freedom of Man, psychiatry will not really be able to progress.”  Therefore, psychiatry should not be allowed to wipe out a small church, and then go on to a bigger church, and a bigger church, and so take it all over.

The government “has no right ... to comment upon religious beliefs or practice....  They are telling us that we must not do something we are not doing.”  We are not treating the sick and the insane.  There is no law against increasing people’s ability or intelligence, and that is all that we are doing.  “Psychiatry is demanding its right to kill or maim any human being, after it states that he’s crazy....  If they can do that, they can control the planet, politically.”  But they will fail, because they can’t complete a cycle of action or choose a right target.  There is no law against making people better or more intelligent.  Also, when someone tries to cut a pure theta line, it tends to blow up against him.

“Our victory was the victory of the individual over ‘Fate’ and the universe....  If we win, everybody wins.”  Crushing the opposition on the way up is hardly worth doing.  

INVERSION

“It should go one way, and it goes the other [way].  It inverts.  It collapses in on itself downward....  When a person is introverted, ... he would look in on himself....  It’s a reverse scale....  As one factor progresses, the other factor degresses....  It goes backwards.”  

EXTERIORIZATION

“An action which I have just described ... as the history of Buddhism.” A thetan walks out of or exists out of a body.  Exteriorization is “the action of moving out of a body.” Psychiatrists boobytrap this by claiming “that insane people can exteriorize.”  In fact, if they do exteriorize, they are sane while they are exterior.  

INTERIORIZATION

People who are interiorized.  “Interiorization is not the reverse of this.  [It] means ‘going into it too fixedly and becoming part of it’, [not just ‘going into your head’].  You could interiorize into work [or into] most anything.” Exteriorization means the spirit moving out of the body.  
RESTIMULATION

“The reactivation of an existing incident....  Some approximation of the original incident causes it to go into play....  There is a point where it was restimulated....  The restimulation is usually unknown to the person.  If it were known, ... he would immediately recover....  Unknown, ... it tends to have an effect upon the [person]....  By picking up restimulations, you can knock out of action sn engram, without running it.”  It is as though the engram sat over in locker A, undisturbed and not troubling the person.  Then one day, he passes a truck, and the engram drops out of locker A, and the person doesn’t know what it is.  So he becomes the effect of it.  If you picked up the moment of its restimulation, it would drop back into locker A and cease to trouble the person.  “It is upon this fact that the whole subject of releasing depends.” The erasure that occurs is the erasure of these points of restimulation.  

DESTIMULATION

“‘Destimulate’ means to take away the restimulation.  [It] does not mean the erasure of the original incident.” It is the knocking out of the point of restimulation.  

GENETIC ENTITY

Cytology, the study of cells, conceives of an endless stream of protoplasm passing through time, with branch tracks that are bodies.  Your current body is supposed to have originated from a sea of ammonia.  By the process of reproduction, it is supposed to have dome down to PT.  If that were the case, then somewhere along the line, a blueprint for a body would have had to enter the line.  In the days of dianetics, a good way to account for past lives was to say that they were incidents on the GE line.  [Cf. A History of Man.] The Darwinian theory is an explanation of this unending stream of protoplasm.  We find that this theory doesn’t actually hold good.  Man is a spiritual being.  You should be able to find the blueprint in the body.  We used to think that it showed up on the E-meter.  Actually it doesn’t.  Only you do.  

FIRST OVERT

This “would be the first ... on a chain of overts.” If a guy has an impulse to commit a given overt, you could trace back down the chain to the first one, and, theoretically, he would blow the impulse.  [Cf. expanded dianetics.] But “you should not try to process a specific type of aberration....  It’s quite fatal, ... because, in the first place, it’s an eval for the case.”  Also, it is a condemnatory, negative-type process.  It doesn’t validate the person at all.  You don’t validate the person by finding his nasty habits and trying to process them.”  The percentiles of successes when specific aberrations are ... addressed ... is too low.  [This procedure is-] not successful, because [you are not validating] what’s right with the person....  You don’t have to find out what’s wrong with a person ... to make him right.”  You just get the guy to be able to communicate.  Then you get him to look at his problems, and you find out that he has been resolving them by committing overts.  You get him over doing this.  Then you find that he is very ARC broken with life, and you get him over that.  Then he gets to where he discovers that he has a great “solution” to everything, “and every time he has a bad break, he goes and lies down and is a horse, or something.”  But we are not interested in his solutions, and “we’re not treating him for that reason....  All of these things are simply increasing the abilities of a spirit, not ‘healing’ what’s wrong with it.”  

ENTRANCE POINT TO THIS UNIVERSE

Classified information.  Many times on the time track, one has been told that he just entered this universe.  It is a big swindle.  

OT ACTIVITIES

“Those programs conducted by OT’s to assist scientology.”  

ANCHOR POINTS (Gold Balls)

A body is constructed in a space framework.  You can see these things. At least, some people can.  When a person has dark hollows under his eyes, it is all the little gold balls grouped together under the eyes that have caved in and gone black.  If you could shift the gold ball framework of the body, you could probably bend joints backwards, etc.  Every once in awhile, somebody’s face is out of shape, or something, and you get him to pick up the gold ball and put it back where it belongs, or something.  Or you get him to put a bunch of balls out there to remedy his havingness of that particular ball.  This is anchor point processing, from ‘way back when.  All of a sudden, instead of lying against his face, the gold ball goes back where it belongs, and the PC reasserts his sense of balance.  His face will actually change shape.  This has to do with the structure of bodies and what the space is, in which the body is formed.  It is apparently one of the ways in which bodies are mocked up.  “I wouldn’t look for them, if I were you.  It’s rather fraught with disaster, in some cases.”  Gold balls are used in mocking up the body in space.  

FIRST AND SECOND POSTULATE

If you find the first postulate that was made, relating to a certain situation, you can ignore the second postulate.  About 1952, LRH tried to make an end-all of this.  He looked for the first postulate that one ever made, on the track. We now find that “it’s not necessary to have that.”  

ENERGY

“A potential of motion or power.”  The modern physics definition is that energy is small waves flowing.  It is a force or a flow, or a potential force or flow from something to something, or ability to accomplish work, or to accomplish movement.  A rather doubtful idea that we are taught to believe is that if something moves from point A to point B:

1.  You need energy.

2.  You develop energy.  If you [really] know about the system of energy, you won’t need huge amounts of energy to move particles.  If a person really understands something, he can do remarkable things with it.  Modern physics hasn’t done that well with rocketry.  It is not very efficient.  So energy is potential or actual motion or force.  

FLOW

Progress of particles, impulses, or waves from point A to point B, or in any direction.  There is a direction to it, which rather outlaws the idea of a dispersal.  A dispersal is not a flow.  A flow has the connotation of being somewhat directional.  If something flowing off a mountain is getting wider and wider, it can cease to be a flow and become a flood.  Energy is a flow of particles, waves, etc., in some direction.  A flow is a limited and directional progress of particles through space.  

THOUGHT

Not to be confused with life and the spirit.  A thought is a “spaceless, positionless product of a thetan, containing meaning.”  The Greeks confused it with life.  The original mistake is in the word, “theta”.  For the Greeks, “theta” meant life or thought.  Thought is not life and it is not a spirit.  

LAMBDA

Life, in the dianetic axioms [Dianetic Axiom 11].  It is an unused symbol, today.  

NOTHING

This “implies that the thing is, but is being ‘not-ed’.  You couldn’t not-is something that wasn’t, in the first place....  It’s an assertion against fact.”  

COUNTER-EMOTION

“The emotion which greets the emotion.”  It is point A exerting an emotion against point B.  Emotion is normally something that has flow, wavelength, and meaning mixed up with it.  “Any emotion could counter any emotion.”  So counter-emotion means any emotion that is countering an existing emotion.  When you take apart the emotion in a bank, you can pick out the emotion and counter-emotion.  A counter-emotion is the emotion that is used to meet a situation and which does meet it.  Counter-emotion is an interesting study.  It is related to politics and control of humans.  For instance, the counter-emotion to Hitler’s rage, in Germany, was enthusiasm.  The advertising field is also very interested in counter-emotion.  The advertising exec comes up against it, because he tries to counter want with an emotion.  But want isn’t an emotion, so there is no counter-emotion.  [So you have to know what emotion could create a desire for the product and counter that.]  

MEMORY AND RECALL

There is “no difference between these two terms that’s significant to the auditor....  Recall, however, implies that you bring it up to present and look at it.  It has that connotation, whereas “memory” has the connotation that you simply knew it had happened.  [So the two terms have] two different connotations.”  But they are very easily interchanged, because a person doesn’t have to bring things up to PT when he is clear.  He doesn’t do this any longer.  There are a lot of things that he doesn’t bring up to PT to recall them.  He can recall them in detail and tell you exactly where they are, without having them brought up into the present to review.  To that extent, the modern clear is far in advance of the Book One definition of clear.  “The reason one can’t recall is totally contained in the fact that his memory is totally surrounded by mass which prevents him from recalling.”  If you got rid of all the mass of the mind, you wouldn’t have anything to recall.  Correct?  Actually, it doesn’t work that way at all.  When you get the mass off, recall is easy.  It is undue duress in the incident that prevents recall.  So the individual gets a picture of the incident to read it, because he can’t enter the incident where it is.  The mental energy you used in bailing out of a lions’ cage would prevent you from remembering that you had been in the lions’ cage.  Therefore, “amnesia” is the situation where a person is “protecting himself” from so many dangers on the track that the mass prevents penetration, because the part of the track for which he has amnesia is so heavily charged.  

CONFIDENCE

“An expression of trust.”  Degree of trust.  Inflation is an expression of no confidence in the government.  Money is a symbolized idea that goes bad when confidence in the issuer drops.  That is why they put pictures of kings and presidents, etc., on money.  They try to associate [money and its issuer].  Trust (and distrust) is composed of past experience.  “Total trust is looked on as total idiocy, but it is the only condition under which you can exist.”  We didn’t arrive through suspicion!  

CERTAINTY

“The degree of willingness to accept the awareness of an isness.”  It is a very conditional thing, since, in the first place, it is questionable whether any mass has mass.  A scientologist does not start out from, “Where did the wall come from?”, but just from, “Is the wall there?” And if it is there, the scientologist can have certainty on it.  It is possible to generate uncertainty by asking, “What is?” Brainwashing is the trick of mixing up   certainties.  To unconfuse someone, it is only necessary to have him regain some certainties.  A person ARC breaks if his certainties get shifted.  An education can be made hypnotic by qualifying everything, so that it becomes a sort of generality, and definitely an uncertainty.  

GENERALITY
“Any unspecific statement ... tends towards a generality.  It’s the substitution of a plural for a singular, or ... a greater for a lesser.”  This may or may not be intentional.  Dispersed people talk in generalities. Classifying anything comes under this heading.  For instance, it is not really “boys”.  It is “boy, boy, boy, etc.”  [Cf. Korzybski’s General Semantics.] Classifying is necessary, but it is very dangerous.  Classifications occur in the bank.  “They” is always one person.  You will always find out exactly who “they” is, on a meter.  The generality is the primary tool of the SP.  It is used to prevent reach, as in “Everything is all covered with germs, Johnny!”  

SUPPRESS

To squash.  To sit on.  To make smaller.  To refuse to let reach.  To make uncertain about his reaching.  To render (liquefy by heating) or lessen in any way possible, by any means possible, to the harm of the person and the fancied protection of the suppressor.  The SP often expresses generalities to the suppressed person, thus surrounding him with generalities.  The invention of “germs” was a bit suppressive.  The suppressive uses tricks and mechanisms to prevent reach.  

POSTULATE

To generate or think a concept.  A concept is a think, a thought.  To postulate implies a requirement that something goes, stops, turns white, goes blue, or remains blue.  Or that it is something, or that it isn’t something. Or that some action is going to take place, etc.  A postulate implies conditions and actions, rather than just plain thinks.  A postulate is associated more with intention than it is with a thought.  It has a dynamic connotation.  

HAVINGNESS

The feeling that one owns or possesses.  It is possible to wear a coat without having a coat.  Mere possession does not make havingness.  

CONFRONTING

“Ability to front up to.”  “Confronting” is derived from “with-fronting”.  So there is a dim connotation that if you confront the door, the door is confronting you.  Co-action is implied, but this does not actually exist, in our meaning of the word.  Confront is the ability of the individual “to face up [to], look at, stand up to, stand in front of, be near, see, visualize, or otherwise perceive, something.”  By extension, if you can’t confront something, you can’t handle it.  Thetans have been steam-rolled by confronting.  Total confronting is not the total answer.  There are times to stand up and glare, and there are times not to.  When a person can selectively confront or not confront anything, then, of course, he has total power.  These do go together.  When a thetan doesn’t want to confront something, he tends to mask it, to turn away from it, and it tends to make him an effect.  If he can’t make an effect on it, it can make an effect on him.  However, in fact, to stand in front of an automobile going 60 MPH and to let it run over you, just to demonstrate that you are not afraid of confronting it is assininity.

If you ask a person whether he can confront an automobile going 60 MPH and he comm lags, you know that he is down into an obsessive confront and feels that there is some sense in your asking him to do it.  He has the idea that there is something wrong with him if he won’t go and do this.  Willful and knowing confronting or willingness to conceive the idea of or to confront or not to confront -- these concepts are all contained in the single idea of confronting.  If you felt that you had to be able to stand up to anything, that would be “to confess that you couldn’t stop anything from occurring.” I’m willing to confront putting my arm out to an automobile traveling 60 MPH and having it stop.  To that extent, I am willing to confront.

This is not conditional confronting.  “What are the conditions under which you would be willing to confront this?” is not a fair question.  No one wants to lead a life of ruin, though some have made it into a virtue [e.g. the Stoics].  It is a philosophical booby trap.  They persuade people that they should be willing to live a life as dope-addicts, bums, and in total ruin, in order to demonstrate that they can confront this kind of life.  That is suppression.  It has precious little to do with sanity.  But it is a terrific process, in that the individual will come up to finding out what he is obsessively confronting, as well as what he is willing to confront and what he doesn’t have to confront.  One thing he might find out is that he doesn’t have to go on confronting forever.  In fact, he is quite tired of standing there. [So a desire to have a challenge concerning existence only relates to being willing to engage in a larger game.]

As the power to confront or not arises selectively, an individual’s self-determinism arises accordingly.  Very often, a thetan who never likes to be moving explains the fact that he got run over by X, by saying that he was perfectly willing to confront it.  He is happy that he got run over by X, because now he has had such an experience.  He says, “Well, it was a good experience, but I never want to do it again.”  When a person can control things, he can selectively confront.  When he loses that ability, he says, “Well, at least I can confront it.”  The thought that you can’t do anything about anything is very humanoid and deadly.  There is suppression at work, if a person gets the idea that because he has the ability to confront anything, he must therefore confront everything.  This is an invalidation of his ability to control and change undesirable aspects of the environment.  This is SP talk.  It is very different from being willing to confront anything.  It is only when you lose the ability to handle a situation that you justify your inability by the thought that you can confront the disaster that thereby ensues.

“We’ve run out of time.  I leave you confronting your sins.  Thank you.”    

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JUNE 1971 R

Remimeo	REVISED 25 NOVEMBER 1974
Tech & Qual
All Students
Supervisors	 Word Clearing Series 3R
Supervisor’s Course
Cramming
Word Clearers

BARRIERS TO STUDY

There are three different sets of physiological and mental reactions that come from 3 different aspects of study. They are three different sets of symptoms.

(1) Education in the absence of the mass in which the technology will be involved is very hard on the student.

It actually makes him feel squashed. Makes him feel bent, sort of spinny, sort of dead, bored, exasperated.

If he is studying the doingness of something in which the mass is absent this will be the result.

Photographs help and motion pictures would do pretty good as they are a sort of promise or hope of the mass but the printed page and the spoken word are not a substitute for a tractor if he’s studying about tractors.

You have to understand this data in its purity—and that is that educating a person in a mass that they don’t have and which isn’t available produces physiological reactions. That is what I am trying to teach you.

It’s just a fact.

You’re trying to teach this fellow all about tractors and you’re not giving him any tractors—well he’s going to wind up with a face that feels squashed, with headaches and with his stomach feeling funny. He’s going to feel dizzy from time to time and very often his eyes are going to hurt.

It’s a physiological datum that has to do with processing and the field of the mind.

You could therefore expect the greatest incidence of suicide or illness in that field of education most devoted to studying absent masses.

This one of studying the something without its mass ever being around produces the most distinctly recognizable reactions.

If a child felt sick in the field of study and it were traced back to this one, the positive remedy would be to supply the mass—the object or a reasonable substitute— and it would clear it up.

(2) There is another series of physiological phenomena that exist which is based on the fact of too steep a study gradient.

That’s another source of physiological study reaction because of too steep a gradient.

It is a sort of a confusion or a reelingness that goes with this one.

You’ve hit too steep a gradient.

There was too much of a jump because he didn’t understand what he was doing and he jumped to the next thing and that was too steep and he went too fast and he will assign all of his difficulties to this new thing.

Now differentiate here—because gradients sounds terribly like the 3rd one of these study hang-ups, definitions—but remember that they are quite distinctly different.

Gradients are more pronounced in the field of doingness but they still hang over into the field of understanding. In gradients however it is the actions we are interested in. We have a plotted course of forward motion of actions. We find he was terribly confused on the second action he was supposed to do. We must assume then that he never really got out of the first one.

The remedy for this one of too steep a gradient is cutting back. Find out when he was not confused on the gradient, then what new action he undertook to do. Find what action he understood well. Just before he was all confused what did he understand well—and then we find out that he didn’t understand it well.

It’s really at the tail end of what he understood and then he went over the gradient you see.

It is most recognizable and most applicable in the field of doingness.

That’s the gradient barrier and one full set of phenomena accompanies that.

(3) There is this third one. An entirely different set of physiological reactions brought about through—a bypassed definition. A bypassed definition gives one a distinctly blank feeling or a washed-out feeling. A not-there feeling and a sort of nervous hysteria will follow in the back of that.

The manifestation of “blow” stems from this 3rd aspect of study which is the misunderstood definition or the not comprehended definition, the undefined word.

That’s the one that produces the blow.

The person doesn’t necessarily blow on these other two—they are not pronouncedly blow phenomena. They are simply physiological phenomena.

This one of the misunderstood definition is so much more important. It’s the make-up of human relations, the mind and subjects. It establishes aptitude and lack of aptitude and it’s what psychologists have been trying to test for years without recognizing what it was.

It’s the definitions of words.

The misunderstood word.

That’s all it goes back to and that produces such a vast panorama of mental effects that it itself is the prime factor involved with stupidity and the prime factor involved with many other things.
If a person didn’t have misunderstoods his talent might or might not be present but his doingness would be present.

We can’t say that Joe would paint as well as Bill if both were unaberrated in the field of art, but we can say that the inability of Joe to paint compared with the ability of Joe to do the motions of painting is dependent exclusively and only upon definitions—exclusively and only upon definitions.

There is some word in the field of art that the person who is inept didn’t define or understand and that is followed by an inability to act in the field of the arts.

That’s very important because it tells you what happens to doingness and that the restoration of doingness depends only upon the restoration of understanding on the misunderstood word—misunderstood definition.

This is very fast processing. There is a very swift wide big result obtainable in this.

It has a technology which is a very simple technology.

It enters in at the lower levels because it has to. This doesn’t mean it is unimportant, it means it has to be at the entrance gates of Scientology.

It IS a sweepingly fantastic discovery in the field of education and don’t neglect it.

You can trace back the subject a person is dumb in or any allied subject that got mixed up with it. The psychologist doesn’t understand Scientology. He never understood a word in psychology so he doesn’t understand Scientology.

Well that opens the gate to Education. Although I’ve given this one of the misunderstood definition last it is the most important one.

                                       	L. RON HUBBARD
                                       	Founder

LRH:nt.rdjh 
Copyright ©1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER 1969RB
Issue III
Remimeo
Class VIII	REVISED 3 AUGUST 1978
Class VIII	RE-REVISED 4 SEPTEMBER 1978
Course Supervisors	(Revisions in this type style)
Registrars
Dianetic Checksheet
Dianetic Auditors

(This Bulletin has been revised to align with New Era Dianetics tech. The Dianetic Student Rescue Intensive is given in HCOB 2 July 1978 New Era Dianetics Series 11, DIANETIC STUDENT RESCUE INTENSIVE.

There are, additionally, Scientology steps to the Student Rescue Intensive, which can be done by a trained Scientology auditor. These steps are contained herein, to give you additional Student Rescue Intensive steps you can do on your pc if you are a Class III or above Scientology auditor AND a New Era Dianetics auditor.)

STUDENT RESCUE INTENSIVE

In working with a student, a supervisor found that engrams and secondaries gather around the subject of study and developed some material on it which I tested and redeveloped.

He said:

“The subject of study has been abound with ‘authorities’ and boobytraps forever and a day, but until Ron researched this field of human endeavour and published his findings on tapes, HCOBs and Policy Letters, nobody has EVER made any progress toward the resolution of study itself as a problem.

“In this very day and age we find physical punishments of students the rule rather than the exception, and even the use of instruments like canes, sticks, shoes and such like articles in order to ‘teach’ a student (create ‘ARC’) is accepted as normal practice.

“The phenomena of secondaries and engrams resulting thereof, which inhibit study are not known about or completely ignored, and often handled by a further duress.

“And many a once bright keen young student throws in his study in despair and goes to the nearest oculist for even stronger lenses in his glasses to help his ruined eyesight.

“THE SUBJECT, THE VERY IDEA OF STUDY ITSELF HAS BECOME TRAUMATIC, IT IS AN AREA OF LOSSES AND PHYSICAL PAINS.”

The Class VIII C/S can be audited by a Class III who is also a New Era Dianetics auditor.

1. 	Fly a rud to F/N.

2. 	Do Remedy A on Dianetics or Scientology. (Omit if student has had one.)

3. 	Do Remedy B. (Omit if student has had one.)

(Ref:	Book of Case Remedies
	HCOB 9 Nov 67 Review Auditor’s Book of Case Remedies
	Revision of Remedy A, Remedy B and S and Ds)

4. 	Assess:

	Being Trained	Education
	Being Educated	Schools
	Study	Teachers
	Learning	Enforcement
	Stress	Misunderstoods

5. Prepcheck best reading item.

This completes the Scientology steps of the Student Rescue Intensive.

DIANETIC STUDENT RESCUE INTENSIVE

6. 	Take the item found in 4 above and do a preassessment on it.

7. 	Find the running item, using standard preassessment procedure. (Ref: HCOB 18 Jun 78 New Era Dianetics Series 4 ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM.)

8. 	Run out the item you have found in Step 7, R3RA Quad (or Triple if pc is not yet Quaded).

9. 	Repeat the preassessment on the original item found in Step 4 and repeat Steps 7 and 8 on that item.

10. 	Continue reassessing the Preassessment List on the original item and running out R3RA Quad the best reading running item until there are no further reads on the preassessment of that original item.

The intensive should be concluded when the pc is now happy about study.

PROMOTING STUDENT RESCUE INTENSIVES

Any org or course has on it some slow students or students who easily dope off while attempting to study, or students who become upset by study or try to blow.

A registrar should periodically obtain a list of these and see that they are sold a Student Rescue Intensive.

A Student Rescue Intensive is not run until the pc has been completed up to Action Eleven of the New Era Dianetics Full Pc Program Outline (HCOB 22 Jun 78 New Era Dianetics Series 2) as it would interrupt his program because drugs, if he has taken any, are a probable contributory cause to being unable to study. Also the Student Rescue Intensive is not a substitute for proper Word Clearing of Dianetic, Scientology and earlier courses and training. It does, however, make the latter much more effective.

LRH:dr 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1969, 1973, 1978 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 NOVEMBER 1967

Remimeo

REVIEW AUDITORS
BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES

REVISION OF REMEDY A, REMEDY B, AND S AND Ds
(Note: To be reprinted for insertion in every
copy of The Book of Case Remedies. )

This bulletin is to be inserted in and changes The Book of Case Remedies PROCEDURES for Remedy A, Remedy B and S and Ds (Search for and Discovery of Suppressives).

Recent analyses made of Qualifications Divisions Departments of Review and of the flow of students and pcs through the Saint Hill org show:

1. 	The KEY processes so far as orgs are concerned are Remedy A, Remedy B and S&Ds.

2. 	Auditors need direct mechanical technology to do these three processes effectively.

REMEDY A

Remedy A locates the MISUNDERSTOODS a person has in Scientology. Originally it read “Misunderstood words”. Words of course will emerge in the general run of misunderstoods.

REMEDY A is done only by LISTING. It must not be done verbally alone. It is a Level III process.

The listing question is “In the subjects of Dianetics or Scientology who or what has been misunderstood?”

The item is found on the list and given to the student. That is all. There is no other step.

The rules of listing all apply.

If the student won’t have the item it is not correct and the list must be straightened up with the general auditing rules that govern listing.

REMEDY B

The form of this process is changed. It is done by three lists. These three may only be done by formal LISTING and the general tech of listing as governed by Level III tech.

The lists make the form of an I

LIST 1B

This is done to locate what in the Scientology PT is giving trouble. It is done as a list and the item is found.

The listing question is:

“In your studies of Dianetics and Scientology who or what are you having trouble with?”

The item is found and given to the student.

This step is governed by all the tech of listing.

LIST 2B

The item found on List 1B is now listed in order to find the past track subject similar to what is giving trouble in present time.

The listing question is:

“In your past, who or what was similar to ............(item found in List 1B)?”

It is highly illegal to limit the question to this lifetime.

All the rules of listing apply.

The item is found and given to the student.

LIST 3B

The third list of the process is now done.

The listing question is

“Who or what was misunderstood in ..........(the item found on list 2B)?”

The listing is covered by the general tech of listing as found in Level III.

The item is found and given to the student.

This completes the Remedy B.

If a floating needle occurs any time during the process with good indicators thoroughly visible in the student the process is concluded at that point.

The process is used on anyone having trouble studying Dianetics or Scientology. The trouble, as it doesn’t clear up with Remedy A, is coming from some prior subject.

More than one of these can be done if all steps are done for each one.

S & D

Search and Discovery of Suppression is called an “S and D”. It locates the suppressives on the case.

I have several times undercut (gotten processes that reach deeper) on S & Ds.

The earliest process asked merely who might have been suppressive to the pc. This is still valid but I have found 2 flaws in it.

1. 	The auditor does not do a listing type S & D at all but just chattily brushes it off.

2. 	The list from this question contains an actual suppressive that is passed right over.

Therefore I undercut the question and obtained much better results because the new question reached deeper.

The new question was “Who or what might have suppressed you?”

Then I recalled an even deeper question. This was “What purpose has been suppressed?” This was given to Qual Div SH some time ago. It would have 2 lists. The first is for the purpose as above and the second would be “Who or what suppressed ......(purpose found)?”

For some reason, probably because no one did 2 lists, this undercut was neglected.

Therefore I researched further and developed what we will now use as an S & D.

It is one of these killer processes. It is VERY strong. So it isn’t to be carelessly done.

If you get a wrong item on an S & D YOU CAN MAKE THE PC ILL. So one has to do an S & D right and follow all the rules of listing as given in Level III tech.

Also I find now that when a list item found is a generality (multiple subject, not specific such as “dogs” or “the public”) the list is simply not complete. One does not have to settle for a generality and then list the generality. He will find that the pc will eventually list the specific non-general item anyway. Of course one can also do a represent list of a general item found if that seems best.

The real question for an S & D was established only when I found a purpose all Suppressives have in common and is a very fundamental effort in suppressives. This effort by suppressives, when found, then permitted me to form the question.

The key S & D question is:

“Who or what has attempted to unmock you?”

Unmocking (an effort to reduce or make disappear) is the primary effort of suppressives.

Therefore the listing question on test delivers up items totally overlooked by the earlier types of S & D.

The question needs to be cleared carefully for non-Scientology. If it has to be rephrased, watch out as the meaning may vanish. “Tried to make nothing of you” might substitute but at this writing only unmock has been tested and a question for others than educated Scientologists will be developed and issued and made part of the enclosure for the book.
This S & D question must be done by LISTING only and with great care to follow Level III Listing tech as it, being powerful, will backfire on the pc if done carelessly and a wrong item is found.

The item is found by listing and given to the pc, which is the end of the process. If a generality results it may be represented. But listing continued will give the same result of a single item. A general item must not be given to the pc as the final result.

This process will now be standard review S & D.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
								Founder
LRH:jp.cden
Copyright © 1967 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo	
Tech
Qual	Refers to HCO PL 15 Nov 74,
ARC Brk Reg	“CFs, ARC Breaks in”
ARC Brk Auditor
Tours

STUDENT REHABILITATION LIST

TO BE DONE ONLY BY AN AUDITOR WHO
CAN MAKE PREPARED LISTS READ.

This list is for use by ARC Brk Regs and Auditors, Tours personnel, Tech and Qual when recovering blown Students or fixing up blowy Students or Students in trouble or Students who failed in practice.

By “blown Students” we mean Students who have left the org incomplete on their course, Students who have ceased their studies and are in the org, Students who have not gone on to their next service, staff who do not attend or have stopped going to study for any reason or Auditors in the field who have failed in practice.

ASSESSMENT

This list can be assessed Method 3 or Method 5 depending on the severity of the upset.

The EP is a Student who is no longer upset or blowy and ready to return to his service or course and does.

1. 	THERE WERE MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS. 	_________
	(Find and clear them, each to F/N.)

2. 	NO HELP OR WORD CLEARING FROM THE SUPERVISOR. 	_________
	(2wc which, if Wd Clg find out where he was having trouble and 
	use WC M4 to clear it up. Take to F/N.)

3. 	INTERFERENCE FROM THE SUPERVISOR THAT STOPPED 	_________
	YOU FROM GETTING ON. 
	(2wc E/S to F/N. Clean up any protest.)

4. 	PERSONAL OUT ETHICS RESULTING IN A W/H. 	_________
	(2wc what, handle as a W/H.)

5. 	SIMPLY BOOTED OFF FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO 
	GOD OR REGISTRARS. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

6. 	DISPUTE OVER FEES. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

7. 	YOU WERE GIVEN A WRONG WHY. 	_________
	(L4BR and handle.)

8. 	TOLD YOU WERE PTS AND YOU WEREN’T. 	_________
	(Indicate it. 2wc E/S to F/N. L4BR if any trouble.)

9. 	DIDN’T FULLY CLEAR EACH WORD. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N. Clear any Mis-U words.)

10. 	HAVING TO CLEAR WORDS YOU ALREADY UNDERSTOOD.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

11. 	ARC BRKS ON COURSE.	_________
	(ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N. Watch out for MWHs.)

12. 	PROBLEMS ON COURSE.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

13. 	ON COURSE FOR SOME OTHER REASON THAN YOU
	STATED.	_________
	(2wc what, E/S to F/N.)

14. 	SCN DOWNGRADED TO YOU.	_________
	(2wc for details, find out who, PTS Interview if necessary.)

15. 	SCN PEOPLE LIED ABOUT TO YOU.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N. Find out who. PTS Interview if necessary.)

16. 	OUT 2D.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H.)

17. 	DIDN’T PAY FOR THE COURSE OR SOME SERVICE.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H.)

18. 	SOMEONE KEPT AFTER YOU FOR MONEY.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

19. 	THERE WAS A FALSE ATTESTATION.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H.)

20. 	FALSE EXAM.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H.)

21. 	COULDN’T APPLY THE MATERIALS.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

22. 	COULDN’T MASTER A METER.	_________
	(2wc, find out what he didn’t understand about it and clear it up
	to F/N.)

23. 	NOBODY TO AUDIT.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

24. 	PREVENTED FROM AUDITING.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

25. 	YOU WERE CONFUSED.	_________
	(2wc and clear it up to F/N.)

26. 	THINGS YOU DIDN’T UNDERSTAND.	_________
	(2wc what, clear it up to F/N.)

27. 	YOU HAD DISAGREEMENTS.	_________
	(Find out what, find the Mis-U words and clear to F/N.)

28. 	AN EARLIER SIMILAR SUBJECT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD.	_________
	(2wc what subject, find out what word in it was Mis-U and clear it
	up. Clear each word to F/N.)

29. 	EARLIER FAILED COURSES.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

30. 	DIDN’T USE WORD CLEARING.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N. Clear any words to F/N where he should have.)

31. 	NO METHOD 1 WORD CLEARING. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

32. 	INTERRUPTIONS. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

33. 	PREVENTED FROM STUDYING. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

34. 	ADDED TO YOUR CHECKSHEET. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

35. 	MISSING MATERIALS. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

36. 	NO MATERIALS. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

37. 	NO DICTIONARY. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

38. 	TECH TERMS YOU DIDN’T GET. 	_________
	(Find out what. Clear to F/N.)

39. 	COULDN’T FIND THE MATERIALS. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

40. 	TAPE PLAYERS NOT AVAILABLE. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

41. 	COULDN’T GET A METER. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)	

42. 	FORCED TO HAVE A TWIN. (2wc E/S to F/N.)	_________

43. 	BAD COACHING. (2wc E/S to F/N.)	_________

44. 	NO PRACTICAL. (2wc E/S to F/N.)	_________

45. 	NO SUPERVISOR. (2wc E/S to F/N.)	_________

46. 	NO PLACE TO STUDY. (2wc E/S to F/N.)	_________
47. 	STUDIED UNDER DURESS. (2wc E/S to F/N.)	_________

48. 	UNREAL QUOTAS SET. (2wc E/S to F/N.)	_________

49. 	MADE TO DO TRs TOO OFTEN. (2wc E/S to F/N.)	_________

50. 	SUPERVISOR OR SOMEONE GAVE VERBAL TECH OR 
	INTERPRETED MATERIALS. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

51. 	LOTS OF ADVICE NOT IN HCO Bs OR TAPES. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

52. 	YOU WERE ON THE WRONG COURSE. 	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

53. 	SOMEONE MAD AT YOU ON COURSE.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

54. 	EVALUATION.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

55. 	INVALIDATION.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

56. 	TOLD YOU PASSED WHEN YOU KNEW YOU DIDN’T.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

57. 	TOLD YOU FLUNKED WHEN YOU KNEW YOU HADN’T.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

58. 	NOT ENOUGH SLEEP.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

59. 	NOT ENOUGH TO EAT.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

60. 	NO PLACE TO LIVE.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

61. 	FAMILY TROUBLE.	_________
	(2wc E/S. PTS Interview if necessary.)

62. 	YOU WERE TAKING DRUGS OR ALCOHOL.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

63. 	SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR EYESIGHT.	_________
	(2wc what E/S to F/N.)

64. 	VIOLATED STUDENT RULES.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

65. 	SOME OTHER PHYSICAL PROBLEM.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

66. 	ERROR IN STUDENT AUDITING.	_________
	(C/S 5 3 RI. )
67. 	RESTIM.	_________
	(C/S 53 RI. )

68. 	BAD EXAMINATION.	_________
	(2wc to F/N and correct.)

69. 	CERTIFICATES NEVER CAME.	_________
	(2wc E/S to F/N.)

70. 	SOMETHING ON THIS LIST YOU DIDN’T UNDERSTAND?	_________
	(Clarify and redo list from that point.)

71. 	SOMETHING ELSE WRONG.	_________
	(2wc what, if no joy GF M5 and handle.)

Make sure this list is done by an Auditor who can make a meter read and your courses will fill up with rehabilitated Students.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
	
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 AUGUST 1979
Remimeo
Sups	(Also issued as
Tech	HCO PL 7 Aug 79
Execs	FALSE DATA STRIPPING)
ALL STAFF

Product Debug Series 8

Esto Series 36

FALSE DATA STRIPPING

(Ref: 	The Study Tapes
	Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin 	Vol I Numbers 1-2
		STANDARD PROCEDURE
		Tech Vol 1. pgs. 15-20
	Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin 	Vol I Number 3
		HOW TO RELEASE A CHRONIC SOMATIC
		Tech Vol 1, pgs. 24-26
	NOTES ON THE
	LECTURES	Pgs. 52-66,112-1 13)

When a person is not functioning well on his post, on his job or in life, at the bottom of his difficulties will often be found unknown basic definitions and laws or false definitions, false data and false laws, resulting in an inability to think with the words and rules of that activity and an inability to perform the simplest required functions The person will remain unfamiliar with the fundamentals of his activity, at times appearing idiotic, because of these not-defined and falsely defined words.

Verbal hatting is the main source of false definitions and false data. Someone who “knows” tells someone else a definition or a datum. The person now thinks he knows the definition (even though nothing in the field makes any sense to him). The word may not even read on the meter during misunderstood checks because the person “thinks he knows.”

A politician is told by an advisor, “It doesn’t matter how much money the government spends. It is good for the society.” The politician uses this “rule” and the next thing you know, inflation is driving everybody to starvation and the government to bankruptcy. The politician, knowing he was told this on the very best authority, does not spot it as false data, but continues to use it right up to the point where the angry mobs stand him up in front of a firing squad and shoot him down. And the pity of it is that the politician never once suspected that there was anything false about the data, even though he couldn’t work with it.

There is no field in all the society where false data is not rampant. “Experts,” “Advisors,” “Friends,” “Families” seldom go and look at the basic texts on subjects, even when these are known to exist, but indulge in all manner of interpretations and even outright lies to seem wise or expert. The cost, in terms of lost production and damaged equipment is enormous. You will see it in all sectors of society. People cannot think with the fundamentals of their work. They goof. They ruin things. They have to redo what they have already done.

You’ll find people whose estimate of the environment is totally perverted to the point they’re walking around literally in a fog. The guy looks at a tree and the reality of the tree is blurred by the “fact” that “trees are made by God” so he won’t take care of the tree because he is convinced.

What we’re trying to cure in people is the inability to think with data. This was traced by me to false data as a phenomenon additional to misunderstood words, although the misunderstood word plays a role in it and will have to be allowed for.

When a person is having difficulty in an area or on a post, when he can’t seem to apply what he has “learned” or what he is studying or when he can’t get through a specific drill or exercise in his training materials, you would suspect he has false data in that area or on those materials. If he is to use it at all effectively he must first sort out the true facts regarding it from the conflicting bits and pieces of information or opinion he has acquired. This eliminates the false data and lets him get on with it.

INABILITY TO HAT

We are looking here at a brand new discovery I have made which is that it can be nearly impossible to hat anyone who is sitting on false data on the subject you are trying to hat him on. This is the primary reason people cannot be hatted and False Data Stripping therefore enables a person to be hatted even though other approaches have failed. This is a very valuable discovery—it solves the problem of inability to hat or train.

SOURCES

False data on a subject can come from any number of sources. In the process of day-to-day living people encounter and often accept without inspection all sorts of ideas which may seem to make sense but don’t. Advertising, newspapers, TV and other media are packed with such material. The most profound false data can come out of texts such as Stanislavsky (a Russian actor and director); and even mothers have a hand in it, such as “children should be seen and not heard.”

Where a subject, such as art, contains innumerable authorities and voluminous opinions you may find that any and all textbooks under that heading reek with false data. Those who have studied study tech will recall that the validity of texts is an important factor in study. 

Therefore it is important that any supervisor or teacher seeking to use False Data Stripping must utilize basic workable texts. These are most often found to have been written by the original discoverer of the subject and when in doubt avoid texts which are interpretations of somebody else’s work. In short, choose only textual material which is closest to the basic facts of the subject and avoid those which embroider upon them.

It can happen, if you do False Data Stripping well and expertly without enforcing your own data on the person, that he can find a whole textbook false—much to his amazement. In such a case, locate a more fundamental text on the subject. (Examples of false texts: Eastman Kodak; Lord Keynes treatises on economics; John Dewey’s texts on education; Sigmund Freud’s texts on the mind; the texts derived from the “work” of Wundt (Leipzig 1879—Father of Modern Psychology); and (joke) a textbook on “Proper Conduct for Sheep” written by A. Wolf.)

USE OF FALSE DATA STRIPPING

False Data Stripping should be used extensively in all hatting and training activities. Current society is riddled with false data and these must be cleared away so that we can hat and train people. Then they will be able to learn useful data which will enable them to understand things and produce valuable products in life.

False Data Stripping can be done on or off the meter. It can be done by an auditor in session, by a Supervisor, Cramming Officer or Word Clearer or by an exec, Esto or any administrator. Students and staff can be trained to do it on each other.

Not a lot of training is required to deliver this procedure but anyone administering it must have checked out on this HCOB/PL and have demoed and drilled the procedure. If it is going to be done on the meter (which is preferable) the person doing it must have an OK to operate an E-Meter.

GRADIENTS

It will be found that false data actually comes off in gradients.

For example, a student handled initially on false data on a particular drill will appear to be complete on it. He goes on with his studies and makes progress for a while and then sometimes he will hit a bog or slow in his progress. This is usually an indication that more false data has been flushed up (restimulated or remembered as a result of actually doing studies or drills). At that point more basic false data will come off when asked for. The reason for this is: when you first give a student false data handling he doesn’t know enough about the subject to know false data from the true. When he has learned a bit more about the subject he then collides with more false data hitherto buried. This can happen several times, as he is getting more and more expert on the subject.

Thus the action of stripping off false data can and must be checked for and used in any training and hatting. 

The rundown has to be given again and again at later and later periods, as a student or staff member may come up against additional faulty data that has been not-ised. It can be repeated as often as necessary in any specific area of training until the person is finally duplicating and is able to use the correct tech and only the correct tech exactly.

THEORY

There is a philosophic background as to why getting off false data on a subject works and why trying to teach a correct datum over a false datum on the subject does not work. It is based on the Socratic thesis-antithesis-synthesis philosophical equation.

Socrates: 470 B.C. - 399 B.C. A great Greek philosopher.

A thesis is a statement or assertion.

Antithesis: opposing statement or assertion.

The Socratic equation is mainly used in debate where one debater asserts one thing and the other debater asserts the opposite. It was the contention of Socrates and others that when two forces came into collision a new idea was born. This was the use of the equation in logic and debate. However, had they looked further they would have seen that other effects were brought into play. It has very disastrous effects when it appears in the field of training.

Where the person has acquired a false thesis (or datum), the true datum you are trying to teach him becomes an antithesis. The true datum comes smack up against the false datum he is hanging on to, as it is counter to it.

In other words, these two things collide, and neither one will then make sense to him. At this point he can try to make sense out of the collision and form what is called a synthesis, or his wits simply don’t function. (Synthesis: a unified whole in which opposites, thesis and antithesis, are reconciled.)
So you wind up with the person either:

(a) 	attempting to use a false, unworkable synthesis he has formed, or

(b) 	his thinkingness locks up on the subject.

In either case you get an impossible-to-train, impossible-to-hat scene.

GLIBNESS

Probably we have here the basic anatomy of the “glib student” who can parrot off whole chapters on an examination paper and yet in practice uses his tools as a door stop. This student has been a mystery to the world of education for eons. What he has probably done in order to get by, is set up a circuit which is purely memory.

The truth of it is his understanding or participation is barred off by considerations such as “nothing works anyway but one has to please the professor somehow.”

The less a person can confront, the more false data he has accumulated and will accumulate. These syntheses are simply additives and complexities and make the person complicate the subject beyond belief. Or the collision of false data and true data, without the person knowing which is which, makes him look like a meathead.

Therefore, in order to cure him of his additives, complexities, apathy and apparent stupidity on a subject, in addition to cleaning up misunderstood words, it is necessary to strip the false data off the subject. Most of the time this is prior to the true data and so is basic on the chain. Where this is the case, when that basic false data is located and stripped the whole subject clears up more easily.

FALSE DATA PRONE

Some people are prone to accepting false data. This stems from overts committed prior to the false data being accepted. The false data then acts as a justifier for the overt.

An example of this would be a student studying past Mis-Us on a subject, cheating in the exam and eventually dropping the subject entirely. Then someone comes along and tells him that the subject is useless and destructive. Well, he will immediately grab hold of this datum and believe it as he needs something to justify his earlier overts.

This actually gets into service facsimiles as the person will use the false data to make the subject or other people wrong.

So if you see someone who is very prone to accepting false data on a particular subject or in general, the answer is to get the prior overts pulled. Then the person will not need to justify his overts by accepting any false data that comes his way.

PROCEDURE

You may not easily be able to detect a false datum because the person believes it to be true. When False Data Stripping is done on a meter the false datum won’t necessarily read for the same reason.

You therefore ask the person if there is anything he has run across on the subject under discussion which he couldn’t think with, which didn’t seem to add up or seems to be in conflict with the material one is trying to each him.

The false datum buries itself and the procedure itself handles this phenomenon.

When the false datum is located it is handled with elementary recall based on 1950 Straightwire. Straight memory technique or Straightwire (so called because one is stringing a line between present time and some incident in the past, and stringing that line directly and without any detours) was developed originally in 1950 as a lighter process than engram running. Cleverly used, Straightwire removed locks and released illnesses without the pc ever having run an engram.

Once one had determined whatever it was that was going to be run with Straightwire, one would have the pc recall where and when it happened, who was involved, what were they doing, what was the pc doing, etc. until the lock blew or the illness keyed out.

Straightwire works at a lock level. When overdone it can key in underlying engrams. When properly done it can be quite miraculous.

STEPS

A. 	Determine whether or not the person needs this procedure by checking the following:

1. 	The person cannot be hatted on a subject.

2. 	No Crashing Mis-Us can be found on a subject yet it is obvious they exist.

3. 	The person is not duplicating the material he has studied as he is incorrectly applying it or only applying part of it, despite Word Clearing.

4. 	He is rejecting the material he is reading or the definition of the word he is clearing.

5. 	You suspect or the person originates earlier data he has encountered on the materials that could contain false data.

6. 	The person talks about or quotes other sources or obviously incorrect sources.

7. 	He is glib.

8. 	The person is backing off from actually applying the data he is studying despite standard Word Clearing.

9. 	He is bogged.

10. 	He cannot think with the data and it does not seem to apply.

B. 	Establish the difficulty the person is having—i.e. what are the materials he can’t duplicate or apply? These materials must be to hand and the person must be familiar with the basic true data on the subject being addressed.

C. 	If the action is being done metered, put the person on the meter and properly adjust the sensitivity with a proper can squeeze.

D. 	Thoroughly clear the concept of false data with the person. Have him give you examples to show he gets it. (This would be done if the person was receiving False Data Stripping for the first time.)

E. 	The following questions are used to detect and uncover the false data. These questions are cleared before they are used for the first time on anyone. They do not have to read on a meter and may not do so as the person will not necessarily read on something that he believes to be true.

1. 	“Is there anything you have run across in (subject under discussion) which you couldn’t think with?”

2. 	“Is there anything you have encountered in (subject under discussion) which didn’t seem to add up?”

3. 	“Is there something you have come across in (subject under discussion) that seems to be in conflict with the material you are trying to learn?”

4. 	“Is there something in (subject under discussion) which never made any sense to you?”

5. 	“Did you come across any data in (subject under discussion) that you had no use for?”

6. 	“Was there any data you came across in (subject under discussion) that never seemed to fit in?”

7. 	“Do you know of any datum that makes it unnecessary for you to do a good job on this subject?”

8. 	“Do you know of any reason why an overt product is alright?”

9. 	“Would you be made wrong if you really learned this subject?”

10. 	“Did anyone ever explain this subject to you verbally?”

11. 	“Do you know of any datum that conflicts with standard texts on this subject?”

12. 	“Do you consider you really know best about this subject?”

13. 	“Would it make somebody else wrong not to learn this subject?”

14. 	“Is this subject not worth learning?”

The questions are asked in the above sequence. When an area of false data is uncovered by one of these questions one goes straight on to Step F—handling.

F. 	When the person comes up with an answer to one of the above questions locate the false datum as follows:

1.	Ask: “Have you been given any false data regarding this?” and help him locate the false datum. If this is being done on the meter, one can use any meter reads one does get to steer the person. This may require a bit of work as the person may believe the false data he has to be true. Keep at it until you get the false datum.

	If the person has given you the false datum in Step E then this step will not be needed: just go straight on to Step G.

G. 	When the false datum has been located, handle as follows:

1. 	Ask: “Where did this datum come from?” (This could be a person. a book. TV, etc.)

2. 	“When was this?”
3. 	“Where exactly were you at the time?”

4. 	“Where was (the person, book, etc.) at the time?”

5. 	“What were you doing at the time?”

6. 	If the false datum came from a person ask: “what was (the person) doing at the time?”

7. 	“How did (the person, book, etc.) look at the time?”

8. 	If the datum has not blown with the above questions ask: “Is there an earlier similar false datum or incident on (the subject under discussion)?” and handle per Steps 1-7.

Continue as above until the false datum has blown. On the meter you will have a floating needle and very good indicators.

DO NOT CONTINUE PAST A POINT WHERE THE FALSE DATUM HAS BLOWN.

If you suspect the datum may have blown but the person has not originated then ask: “How does that datum seem to you now?” and either continue if it hasn’t blown or end off on that datum if it has blown.

H. 	When you have handled a particular false datum to a blow, going earlier similar as necessary, you would then go back and repeat the question from E (the detection step)  that uncovered the false datum. If there are any more answers to the question, they are handled exactly as in Step F (location) and Step G (handling). That particular question is left when the person has no more answers. Then, if the person is not totally handled on the subject under discussion, one would use the other questions from Step E and handle them in the same way. All the questions can be asked and handled as above but one would not continue past a point where the whole subject has been cleared up and the person can now duplicate and apply the data he has been having trouble with.

I. 	CONDITIONAL: If False Data Stripping is being done in conjunction with Crashing Mis-U finding one would now proceed with the Crashing Mis-U finding.

J. 	Send the person to the Examiner.

K. 	Have the person study or restudy the true data on the subject you have been handling.

END PHENOMENA

When the above procedure is done correctly and fully on an area the person is actually having difficulty with he will end up able to duplicate, understand and apply and think with the data that he could not previously grasp. The false data that was standing in the road of duplication will have been cleared away and the person’s thinking will have been freed up. When this occurs, no matter where in the procedure, one ends off the False Data Stripping on that subject and sends the person to the Examiner. He will have cognitions and VGIs and on the meter you will have an F/N. This is not the end of all False Data Stripping for that person. It is the end of that False Data Stripping on the person at that particular time. As the person continues to work with and study the subject in question, he will learn more about it and may again collide with false data at which time one repeats the above process.

NOTE

False data buries itself as the person may firmly believe that it is true. Sometimes the person will have such faith in a particular person, book, etc. that he cannot conceive that any data from that particular source might be false. One artist being false data stripped had received some false data from a very famous painter. Even though the data didn’t really add up and actually caused the artist tremendous problems, he tended to believe it because of where it came from. It took persistence on the part of the person administering the False Data Stripping to eventually blow this false datum with a resulting freeing up of the artist’s ability to think and produce in the area.

MISUNDERSTOODS

Misunderstoods often come up during False Data Stripping and should be cleared when they do. One would then continue with the False Data Stripping. One person being false data stripped knew he had some false data from a particular source but the false data was a complete blank—he couldn’t remember it at all. It was discovered that he had a Mis-U just before he received the false data and as soon as this was cleared up he recalled the false data and it blew. 

This is just one example of how Word Clearing can tie in with False Data Stripping.

REPEATED USE

False Data Stripping can be done over and over as it will come off in layers as mentioned before. If False Data Stripping has been done on a specific thing and at some later point the person is having difficulty with a drill or the materials, the stripping of false data should be done on him again. 

In such a case it will be seen that the person recognizes or remembers more false or contrary data he has accumulated on the subject that was not in view earlier. 

As he duplicates a drill or his materials more and more exactly, former “interpretations” he had not-ised, incorrect past flunks that acted as invalidation or evaluation, etc., may crop up to be stripped off.

CAUTIONS

CODE. False Data Stripping is done under the discipline of the Auditor’s Code. Evaluation and invalidation can be particularly harmful and must be avoided. All points of the code apply.

RUDIMENTS. One would not begin False Data Stripping on someone who already has out-ruds. If the person is upset or worried about something or is critical or nattery, then you should fly his ruds or get them flown before you start False Data Stripping.

OVERRUN. One must be particularly careful not to overrun the person past a blow of the false datum. The stress in recall is that it is a light action which does not get the person into engrams or heavy charge. Keep it light. If you overrun someone past the point of a blow, he may drop into engrams or heavy charge. Just take the recall step to a blow and don’t push him beyond it.

DATE/LOCATE. Date/Locate is another way of getting something to blow. If a false datum does not blow on the recall steps despite going earlier similar, then it could be handled with Date/Locate in session as ordered by the C/S. This would normally be done as part of a False Data Stripping Repair List. Date/Locating false data would never be done except in session as ordered by the C/S or as directed by the False Data Stripping Repair List. The auditor must be totally starrated on Date and Locating and practiced in it before he attempts it.

FALSE DATA STRIPPING REPAIR LIST. The False Data Stripping Repair List is used in session by an auditor when False Data Stripping bogs inextricably or the person is not F/N GIs at exams or gets in trouble after False Data Stripping has been done. A bogged False Data Stripping session must be handled within 24 hours.

NEW STUDENTS. Students who are new to Scientology should not use this procedure on each other as they may be insufficiently experienced to deliver it competently. In this case the Supervisor or someone qualified would administer False Data Stripping to those students who need it.

SUMMARY

The problem of the person who is unable to learn or who is unable to apply what he learns has never been fully resolved before. Misunderstoods were and are a major factor and Word Clearing must be used liberally. Now, however, I have made a major breakthrough which finally explains and handles the problem of inability to learn and apply.

Man’s texts and education systems are strewn with false data. These false data effectively block someone’s understanding of the true data. The handling given in this HCOB/PL makes it possible to remove that block and enable people to learn data so they can apply it.

With the ability to learn comes stability and the production of valuable products. With stability and the production of valuable products comes the achievement of one’s purposes and goals, high morale and happiness.

So let’s get to work on stripping away the false data which plagues Man, clogs up his ability to think and learn and reduces his competence and effectiveness. Let’s increase the ability of individuals and the human race.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 
LRH:gal 	
Copyright © 1979 	
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 NOVEMBER 1972
Remimeo	
TECH SECS	Issue II
Ds of T
Students
QUAL SEC
CRAMMING OFFICER
Confessional Pack

STUDENTS WHO SUCCEED

Over the past year I have done considerable research, observation, pilots and more research on the subject of making successful students.

We have of course excellent study technology which is far in advance of anything Man has had. It has been developed over a period of 22 years.

Sometimes the student is very slow.

Sometimes he ends off study due to non application.

Sometimes the study tech is not used. When this happens of course the tech “didn’t work” because it was not used.

I have run enough pilots now in order to handle this.

HONESTY

In policy there has long been written the natural sequence of ethics, tech and administration.

When administration is out, it is necessary to get in tech. When tech is out it is necessary to get in ethics.

In other words, ethics must be in to get tech in.

ETHICS is a personal thing. By definition, the word means:

“The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others.” (American Heritage Dictionary)

When one is ethical or “has his ethics in” it is by his own determination and is done by himself.

JUSTICE is the action of the group against the individual when he has failed to get his own ethics in.

In the culture in which we live, justice is so savage and often so unreasonable that it tends to inhibit the individual from confessing minor misdemeanors and Crimes.

This aberrates him because it prevents him from getting off his withholds.

This leads to bad health, bad eyesight, deafness and other things as can be proven in auditing results.

IT ALSO LEADS TO OUT COMMUNICATION.

AND IT INHIBITS THE INDIVIDUAL FROM REACHING OUT WITH WHAT HE HAS LEARNED AND APPLYING IT.

The slow student, the glib student, the student who cannot apply are all students who are withholding.

This is true of any Course and any materials and has always been true but no one ever worked it out since they had no real command of the subject of the mind before Dianetics and Scientology.

The culture itself encourages dishonesty and therefore has not been able to solve fully the problem of study.

Only an honest student really reads, really does what he is supposed to do and really applies.

PILOTS

There were several pilot Courses to find this material.

The one which finally proved it was a Course of about 12 students.

They were very slow. They were unable to apply the materials during an apprenticeship.

It was then found none of them had done an honest Primary Rundown. They had “know bested” their way through it, cheating, and had falsely attested.

Then further investigation showed each one of them had come to the Course with his Ethics badly out.

A Confessional was then done on each of them and they were restarted to again do a full Primary Rundown, Student Hat and the materials.

Only then did they succeed in their application of what was studied.

This was also true of their Supervisors, each one of whom had done his Supervisor’s Course with his Ethics out. So one should not blame the students only!

A Case Supervisor in training could not Case Supervise well. It was found he had not even read the case history section sample programs because “he already knew” yet attested he had. Prior to all this his Ethics were out.

When his withholds were handled he could then supervise cases and did well.

CONFESSIONALS

The technology of Confessionals has been upgraded enormously in the last year.

With this vast improvement it becomes possible to remove the barriers and counter-intention to getting his Ethics in and studying in an ethical fashion and being able to reach  with the materials studied and so apply them.
If any student, beginning in a school or on a Course, is given a standard Confessional before beginning serious study, he will proceed much  more rapidly, will study honestly, will apply study materials and, if actual study tech is used, will become a successful student of that subject and will be able to apply what he learns.

Study tech used by itself will succeed somehow in a large number of cases. But when it is preceded by a well done and thorough Confessional its results are more thorough and far more rapid.

When I was first working on evaluations of study in 1971 the “dishonesty factor” appeared as a very general Why. But it was not worked with at that time as there seemed no easy way to handle it.

By improving the technology of Confessionals on another entirely different research channel, the problem of the student also became clear.

Only the honest student is a good student and a credit to his class and the subject and himself.

The only reservation then is that the Confessional itself has to be done competently and honestly. But honest Confessionals breed honest Confessional auditors and this can be closely supervised as an expert action.

This opens the road to improvement and wider success in the already winning and successful subject of Study Tech.

Man is not happy unless he is honest. White, black, red or brown, this is true of all times and all races. And it is true of all students in all schools.

The honest student is the most successful student.

And the technology of the Confessional can make him so, rapidly and easily.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

24 DECEMBER 1972
ISSUE V
REVISED & REISSUED 18 JULY 1974 AS BTB
REVISED 10 MARCH 1977
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 DECEMBER 1972
ISSUE V - SAME TITLE

Confessional Form 5

STUDENT CONFESSIONAL LIST

For use in Confessionals by a Hubbard Confessional Handler.

AUDITOR:	PRECLEAR:________________

ORG:	DATE:_____________________

1.	Are you here for some purpose other than what you say?	_________

2. 	Have you falisfied your qualifications?	_________

3. 	Are you trying to upset or damage Scientology?	_________

4. 	Have you done something you don’t want this Oganization to find out about?	_________

5. 	Have you had a sexual relationship with another student?	_________

6. 	Are you here to procure pcs or students for another group?	_________

7. 	Are you here to get data for someone else?	_________

8. 	Have you ever cheated in an examination?	_________

9. 	Have you ever upset a classroom?	_________

10. 	Have you ever made trouble for a teacher?	_________

11. 	Do you have overts against students?	_________

12. 	Have you falsely attested to passing something?	_________

13. 	Have you ever given a twin a false pass?	_________

14. 	Have you allowed yourself to be passed on something you didn’t fully understand?	_________

15. 	Have you pretended to know?	_________

16. 	Have you ever falsely signed off an item on a checksheet?	_________

17. 	Have you argued with a Supervisor?	_________

18.	Have you ever refused to comply with a cramming order?	_________

19.	During study have you ever failed to look up a word you didn’t know?	_________

20.	Have you ever checked out a student without demanding application?	_________

21.	Have you ever flunked a student for something he really knew?	_________

22.	Have you ever interrupted a student while studying?	_________

23.	Have you ever disturbed a class?	_________

24.	Do you have overts against the subject you are studying?	_________

25.	Have you done something that makes you not deserve study?	_________

26.	Have you not paid your course fees?	_________

27.	Do you have unpaid debts to this or another Scientology Org?	_________

28.	Have you ever studied in order to harm others?	_________

29.	Have you ever used punishment to make others study?	_________

30.	Do you intend using what you learn here for some unworthy purpose?	_________

31.	Have you violated student rules?	_________

32.	Have you stolen anything belonging to another student?	_________

33.	Have you taken Org materials without authorization?	_________

34. 	Have you given another student verbal tech data?	_________

35. 	Have you been insecure with confidential materials?	_________

36. 	Have you read classified materials?	_________

37. 	Have you given Scientology materials to the press?	_________

38. 	Are you a member of a group opposed to Scientology?	_________

39. 	Have you ever caused a student to blow?	_________

40. 	Have you badly audited a fellow student?	_________

41. 	Have you ever made Scientology or a Scientology Organization look bad?	_________

42. 	Have you done something you don’t want this Organization to know about?	_________

43. 	Do you have any overt connected with study or this Organization that you haven’t revealed?	_________

Compiled from 
LRH Briefings 
and Materials by
Lt. Cmdr. B. Livingston

Revised by
Training & Services Bu

Authorized by AVU

for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:AH: RT: BL:mh:lf 
Copyright © 1972, 1974, 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

29 NOVEMBER 1961
AMENDED AND REISSUED 9 JULY 1974 AS BTB
(AMENDMENT IN ITALICS)
Remimeo 
D of T 	CANCELS
D of P 	HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 29 NOVEMBER 1961
Academies 	SAME TITLE
HGCs

STUDENT PROCESSING CHECK AND
2ND DYNAMIC PROCESSING CHECK

The following Process Checks have been sent in by long-time Scientologist Dennis Stephens, D.Scn, who is D of T, Sydney, Australia. Section A is a Student Processing Check and Section B is a much more advanced check which can be used where the 2nd Dynamic is most reactive in a Dynamic Assessment.

SECTION A.

1. 	Have you drunk any alcohol on class days?	_________

2. 	Have you cheated on any class exam?	_________

3.	Are you on this course to prove Scientology cannot help you?	_________

4. 	Are you on this course to get away from somebody or something?	_________

5.	Are you here to get into anything?	_________

6.	Are there any course regulations you do not intend to comply with?	_________

7.	Are you currently taking drugs of any sort?	_________

8.	Have you had any auditing without the Supervisor’s permission?	_________

9.	Have you done any self auditing?	_________

10.	Have you told any other student that your Supervisor’s data is wrong?	_________

11. 	Have you had sex with another student?	_________

12. 	Are you trying to get another student to have sex with you?	_________

13. 	Have you borrowed any Organization property and not returned it?	_________

14. 	Is there anything you feel so uncomfortable about you are thinking of leaving?	_________

15. 	Have you received any medical or dental treatment while on course without permission?	_________
 
16. 	Have you been late to any seheduled course poriod?	_________

17. 	Have you violated the Code of a Scientologist in any way?	_________

18. 	Are you in disagreement with any of the stable data of Scientology?	_________
 
19. 	Have you been getting less sleep than usual?	_________
 
20. 	Have you been eating less than usual?	_________
 
21. 	Have you deliberately disobeyed your Supervisor’s  orders or directions?	_________
 
22. 	Have you unintentionally failed to follow your Supervisor’s orders or directions?	_________
	
23.	Do you have any overdue infraction thesis?	_________

24.	Have you been assigned any infraction thesis you do not intend to do?	_________

25. 	Have you secretly violated any course rule or regulation?	_________

26. 	Have you taken any other student’s property?	_________

27. 	Have you taken any Organisation property?	_________

28. 	Have you passed any restricted data of Scientology to unauthorized persons?	_________

29.	Have you tried in any way to give Scientology a bad name? 	_________

30.	Have you tried to give any Scientologist a bad name? 	_________

31.	Are you a difficult or unco-operative student? 	_________

32.	Do you have a grudge against any other student? 	_________

33.	Have you told lies about anyone while on this course? 	_________

34.	Have you done anything outside course hours whidh you shouldn’t have? 	_________

35.	Are you making any Scientologist guilty of anything? 	_________

36.	Have you been critical of the data on tape? 	_________

37.	Are you witholding asking questions just because you are afraid it will sound stupid? 	_________

38.	Is anyone hostile to Scientology assisting you financially on this course?	_________

39.	Are you here for a different purpose than you say? 	_________

40.	Have you had any unkind thoughts about your Supervisor? 	_________

41.	Have you had any unkind thoughts about a HASI staff member? 	_________

42.	Have you had and unkind thoughts about a fellow student?	_________

SECTION B.

1.	Have you ever done anything with a member of the opposite sex you shouldn’t have? 	_________

2.	Have you ever committed adultery? 	_________

3.	Have you ever practiced sex with a member of your own sex? 	_________

4.	Have you ever sexually assaulted a person? 	_________

5.	Do you have any sexual interests that others might oonsider peculiar? 	_________

6.	Do you collect sexual objects?	_________

7.	Have you ever raped anyone? 	_________

8.	Have you ever been raped? 	_________
	
9.	Have you ever hidden to watch sexual practice? 	_________

10.	Have you ever lied in order to get a person to give you sex? 	_________

11.	Have you ever inflicted unnecessery pain on a sexual partner? 	_________

12.	Have you ever been insincere with a sexual partner? 	_________

13.	Have you ever practised masturbation? 	_________

14.	Have you ever enforced unusual sexual practice upon another? 	_________

15.	Have you ever had sex with a blood relation? 	_________

16.	Have you ever publicly exhibited yourself sexually? 	_________

17.	Have you ever practised sex with an animal? 	_________

18.	Have you ever been sexually unfaithful? 	_________

19.	Have you ever been involved in an abortion? 	_________

20.	Have you ever assisted in an abortion? 	_________

21.	Have you ever used a child for sexual purposes? 	_________

22.	Have you ever ill treated a child? 	_________

23.	Have you ever used a child solely to satisfy your own interests? 	_________

24.	Have you ever deprived a child of their rights to enforce your own control?	_________

25. 	Have you ever deprived a child of their possessions to enforce your own control?	_________

26. 	Have you ever deprived a child of food to enforce your own control?	_________

27. 	Have you ever sworn a child to secrecy to cover up a misdemeanour of your own?	_________

28. 	Have you ever lost your temper with a child?	_________
 
29.	Have you ever willfully lied to a child to cover up a misdemeanour of your own?	_________

30. 	Have you ever lied to a child to cover up your own ignorance?	_________

31. 	What have you done to a child?	_________

32. 	What have you witheld from a child?	_________

33. 	Have you ever betrayed a child?	_________

34. 	Have you ever ridiculed a child?	_________

Amended & Reissued as BTB
by Flag mission 1234
I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU

for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:SW:AL:MH
Copyright © 1961, 1973, 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

26 JULY 1963R
Remimeo
Supervisors	Revised & Reissued 6 December 1974 as BTB
Students
Estos	CANCELS
Central Orgs	HCO BULLETIN OF 26 JULY 1963
Tech Depts	SAME TITLE

TRAINING TECHNOLOGY
COACHING THEORY MATERIAL

All stress in the Theory Section of the Course is on duplicating and understanding the correct data.

The student must duplicate the data before he can understand it. However, simple duplication with the use of “a memory machine” does not mean that the understanding is present.

If the student understands the data, he will find that he has little difficulty in duplicating, retaining and applying it.

I have tried out a method of coaching theory on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course that has gotten amazing results when it was correctly applied.

“WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THAT MEANS?”
COACHING ORILL

The student and the coach sit opposite each other, each holding a copy of the material to be learned.

STEP ONE: The coach has the student read aloud the rule, axiom, definition, sentence or short paragraph to be learned. (The coach must ask for only one major thought at a time.) When the student has read what was asked for, the coach acknowledges. The coach repeats this step until the student reads the exact material as written.

STEP TWO: The coach asks the exact question, “What do you consider that means?” and always acknowledges whatever answer the student gives.

STEP THREE: Repeat Step One and Step Two until the student duplicates the material to be learned in response to the question, “What do you consider that means?” The coach then asks the question, “Do you understand what it means?” If the student doesn’t or is not sure the coach gets the student to define each word on the line, clearing up any that he was not sure of or hesitated over—with a good dictionary. The coach makes sure that all definitions of a word are cleared and gets the student to use them in sentences until he undersrands them. Then he repeats Steps One and Two until the student is able to duplicate the material and understands what it means.

The coach then takes up the next major thought.

SAMPLE “WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THAT MEANS?”
COACHING SESSION

COACH: 	Read the 1st ARC Break Rule aloud.

STUDENT:	All ARC Breaks are caused by by-passed charge.

COACH: 	Good. What do you consider that means?

STUDENT: 	Well .... (pause) .... All ARC Breaks are caused by by-passed charge.

COACH: 	Thank you. Do you understand what it means?

STUDENT:	Yes. All ARC Breaks are caused by BY-PASSED CHARGE.

COACH: 	VERY GOOD. Now read the 2nd ARC Break Rule.

STUDENT: To turn off an ARC Break find and indicate the by-passed charge. (Left out “correct”.)

COACH:	O.K. Read that again.

STUDENT:	To turn off an ARC Break find and indicate the .... Oh .... CORRECT by-passed charge.

COACH: 	Thank you. What do you consider that means?

STUDENT:	(Goes into an explanation)

COACH: 	(When student is finished) Thank you. Read the 2nd ARC Break Rule.

STUDENT:	(Does so.)

COACH: 	Thank you. What do you consider that means?

STUDENT:	(Shorter explanation.)

COACH: 	Thank you. Read it again.

STUDENT:	(Does so. )

COACH: 	Thank you. What do you consider that means?

STUDENT: 	Let’s see .... In order to handle an ARC Break find and indicate the by-passed charge?

COACH: 	Thank you. Read it again.

STUDENT: 	To turn off an ARC Break find and indicate the correct by-passed charge.

COACH: 	Good. What do you consider that means?

STUDENT: 	To turn off an ARC Break find and indicate the correct by-passed charge.

COACH: 		Thank you. Do you understand what it means?

STUDENT: 	Yes.

COACH: 		Good. Read the next sentence.

STUDENT: 	Charge can be by-passed by, One, going later than basic on any chain without further search for basic.

COACH: 	Good. What do you consider that means?

STUDENT:	Well .... You can by-pass charge by going after something closer to present time than the basic on the chain and stopping there without further search for basic.

COACH: 	(Exact word for word duplication not being necessary for something not in capital letters) Good. Do you understand what it means?

STUDENT:	Yes.

COACH:	Good. Read the next sentence. (Etc.)

ANOTHER EXAMPLE

COACH:	Read the 1st ARC Break Rule.

STUDENT:	All ARC Breaks are caused by by-passed charge.

COACH:	Good. What do you consider that means?

STUDENT:	All ARC Breaks are caused by by-passed charge.

COACH:	Thank you. Do you understand what it means?

STUDENT:	I’m not sure.

COACH:	Has the student define each word and c/ears up any word he is not sure of with a good dictionary. The coach makes sure that all definitions of a word are c/eared and gets the student to use them in sentences until he understands them.

STUDENT:	(Does so.)

COACH:	Good. What do you consider that means?

STUDENT:	(Gives an explanation.)

COACH: 	Good. (Continues Steps One and Two until student gives exact duplication of the rule in response to “What do you consider that means?”) Good. Do you understand what it means?

STUDENT:	Yes

COACH: 	Good. Read the 2nd ARC Break Rule. (Etc.)

TIPS TO COACHES

The exactness of duplication required is dependent on the importance of the materiaL Axioms, rules, stable data in capitals and patter must be duplicated word for word and understood. Definitions must be closely duplicated and understood. General theory and examples must be understood. If you are in doubt whether the student has duplicated the data well enough continue the drill.

This coaching method works well only if it is tightly muzzled. Any extra questions or additives to the exact procedure of Steps One, Two and Three are destructive. The coach may understand and acknowledge student originations, but he must do nothing else not designated in the Drill.

Coaches will flnd that some students may spend some time on the first few bulletins coached in this manner. However, the student’s ability to duplicate and understand will improve rapidly and his learning rate will come way up. If the student has too much difficulty doing this drill, run Reach and Withdraw on the material to be learned to a flat point and return to the drill.

If you haven’t done this drill you won’t know that it works. Do it, do it exactly as written, and you’ll be winning from there on out in learning Theory.

Issued by: 
Fred Hare 
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:HH:MH:AL:FH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1963, 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

14 SEPTEMBER 1969
ISSUE I
Remimeo
Course Supers 	REISSUED 4 JULY 1974 AS BTB
Students

CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN O F 14 SEPTEMBER 1969
ISSUE II
SAME TITLE

LEARNING PROCESSES
EDUCATION BY EVALUATION OF
IMPORTANCE

Education by importance is alright as long as you are in terrific ARC with your people. If you are not in terrific ARC with the people vou have to get them to relax about the body of data you are teaching before the importance of data shows up.

A person can be hung up on the all-importance and everything-ness of a subject. He is so nervous of dire consequences that he will eventually have an accident. People are often thoroughly educated into this attitude. It is all so important it will kill him if he doesn’t know. This inhibits his power of choice and ability to evaluate data. Education today is taught by consequence, not by the fact it is a sensible thing to do. In the world importance essentially means punishment.

To teach someone a subject just have him select out the un-importances of the subject. He will start to think everything is important but coax him on with ARC and 8C and he will eventually come up with something un-important ie., you are teaching him how to drive A tractor. He will find the coat of paint on the crank un-important. You acknowledge and ask him to find something else un-important. Keep at this repeating it and repeating it and eventually “all-ness” will start to disintegrate. He will select down to the most important controls of the tractor and the next thing you know he can drive a tractor. He won’t have a craving to know anxiety and won’t be nervous at all. You are teaching by de-evaluation of importance.

It is interesting that a person who never selected out the importances of Scientology or any subiect, and believes every datum must be memorized, you will find, has a history of being punished within an inch of their lives. There is a direct co-ordination here.

Education is basically, fixing date, unfixing data, and changing existing data, either by making it more fixed or less fixed. 

 This technology ing importances can undo to a marked extent a very thorough education in some subject and return it to the power of choice of on individual.

Taken from the 15th ACC
Methods of Education

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:mb 
Copyright © 1969, 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

14 SEPTEMBER 1969
Issue V
Reissued 20 July 1974 as BTB
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1969
Issue V
SAME TITLE

LEARNING PROCESSES
EDUCATION BY DUPLICATION
AND REPETITION

This method is fantastically simple, with very successful results in raising IQ level and cause over learning, accepting and knowing data. The first step is given in the sample below and is the first gradient.

Coach: 	I am gomg to say three numbers. One, two, three. What did I say?

Student: 	One, two, three.

Coach: 	Good. Do you remember what I said? Do you remember what you said? (used alternatively)

Student: 	One, two, three.

Coach: 	Good

This is done using variations of the three numbers, checking how the student is doing every now and then until the student is comfortable and relaxed without any physical pain or tension and he can recall without difficulty what you said and what he said. Check before going on if he can remember the first set of numbers you gave him. Then we go up one gradient and have the student reject or accept data at will.

Example:

Coach: 	All chairs are purple. What did I say?

Student: 	All chairs are purple.

Cosch: 	Okay, both of us said all chairs are purple?

Student: 	Yes

Coach: 	Are they?

Student: 	No.

Coach: 	Alright you could disbelieve something I said and throw it out couldn’t you?

Student: 	Yes.

This step is done using examples of non-significant data which are totally incorrect. When he has regained his power of choice we go on to the next step, that of teaching and getting across the actual datum you want to teach him.
 
Example:

Coach:	Preclears should always be acknowledged. What did I say?

Student: 	Preclears should always be acknowledged.

Coaeh: 	Is this true?

Student: 	Well I don’t know.

Coach. 	Alright, now give me a graphic exalmple of that using these two items.

Student: 	The glass as the preclear says - I’ve had enough. I’m leaving. The coke bottle which is the Auditor must always acknowledge the preclear and says OK.

Coach: 	It’s not very workable is it? Alright modify it.

Student: 	If you want good auditing results aiknowledge your preclear.

Coach: 	If you want good auditing results acknowledge your preclear.

Student: 	Good!

Coach: 	Thank you end of session.

So in this way you can teach a person a datum without duress. Let him think about it and argue it out, get him into agreement. There is no rote set of commands. It consists of two-way comm hased on the above format. and getting him to demonstrore with objects in the room. This way he will KNOW the datum, not just a bunch of words.

Taken from the 15th ACC
Methods of Education

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:mh.rd 
Copyright © 1969, 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

10 DECEMBER 1970R
Revised & Reissued 10 August 1974 as BTB
Remimeo

CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1970
SAME TITLE

THE LEARNING DRILL

(Drill taken and developed from LRH Tape Lecture of
24 Jan 62 “Training-Duplication”)

Learning is not the same as study. A person could do a whole course and get good study stats yet not learn anything. He might even pass an exam yet not have learned the data so that it can be applied.

The subject of Study has been researched and completed by L. Ron Hubbard who did the bulk of the work prior to 1964. The Study Technology has been in full use in Scientology Organizations for many years.

The subject of Learning was started by L. Ron Hubbard in the early ‘50s and required only a small amount of research and correlation for the data to be issued in the final form.

To evolve the most effective of the many Learning Drills which had been researched in previous years, a number of the most successful drills were used on 3 group of students of various levels of Training with “before and after tests” to determine which drill raised the student’s ability to learn and apply data.

The following drill was found to produce the best results on all levels of students in every instance. It was evolved from the LRH Tape Lecture of 24 January 1962, “Training-Duplication”

We have named it simply - “The Learning Drill”.

The drill is not designed for use on study or course materials. It is used to improve the ability to study and increase the learning rate.

The Learning Drill would be done at the beginning of courses, or as needed.

Then the student would study his course materials or anything in the standard way with Study Technology applied, and with Twin Checkouts, Demos, Clay Demos, etc.

The Learning Drill

POSITION: 	Student and coach sit facing each other across a table.

PURPOSE: 	To develop judgement by duplication and understanding.

TRAINING: 	STRESS:

1. 	The first step is duplication.

The coach takes a sentence or phrase trom “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”. The line used is unimportant. The coach reads it to the student. TRs should be in, although not stressed.

The student then repeats the line exactly as the coach read it. Coach merely tries to get the student to repeat a line of sounds. You don’t need to call them words. It is not rote memory. It is duplication. The coach repeats the line each time the student flubs until the student has duplicated it exactly.

2. 	The second step is understanding.

After the student has correctly duplicated what the coach read, coach asks “Give me an example of that.” Student gives example or examples until both are satisfied.

Coach then asks, “How do you feel about that?” and if OK they continue to next line.

If the student has any uncertainties with examples the coach goes back to 1 and starts the drill from the beginning, using the same line.

If the student still has trouble with examples, coach would ask “Are there any misunderstoods on this line?” and any found cleared up. A dictionary should be used where required.

REMEDY: If the student continues to have trouble with examples, the coach could say, “Give me an example of how the datum isn’t that way,” and student gives examples until both are satisfied, then “Give me an example of how it is,” until both are satisfied. Always end off with how it ts.

The student should feel good about the datum after duplication and understanding and should start having realizations as he is further drilled.

Eventually, using the two basic steps, the student will learn judgement.

The drill should be coached on a gradient.

It should be ended on a good win. Student should have VGIs.

The end result on each student is the ability to rapidly and accurately learn data.

Researched at Flag from 
LRH Lectures and Materials 
by 
SO Training & Services Aide and staff

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.rd 
Copyright © 1970, 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

7 FEBRUARY 1971
REISSUED 16 JULY 1974 AS BTB
Remimeo
Scn Orgs	CANCELS
SO Orgs	HCO BULLETIN OF 7 FEBRUARY 1971
FEBC Course	SAME TITLE

ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING DRILLS
ADMIN TRs

These TRs fall into 6 categoriess

1. 	MEST TRs 0 - 4 

2. 	People TRs 0 - 4

3. 	MEST Bull-Bait TRs 0 - 4

4. 	People Bull-Bait TRs 0 - 4

5. 	Reach & Withdraw MEST

6.	Reach & Withdraw People

The Dynamics they cover are 3 (Groups) and 6 (Physical Universe).

They start off very gradiently and work hp to a high pitch of confront and handling by the student.

They must be coached with full understanding of the need to give the student wins and must not run the student into overwhelm and out through the bottom.

Each TR is run to a win where the student is doing the drill comfortably and without effort and is happy about it.

Some of the beginning drills may appear flat already on some students but even so most will be aware of an increase in awaroness, or just feel good about doing the drills.

On the later drills, remember to get the student to win on a gradient, getting tougher and tougher until he can confront and handle any randomity.

The Drills are run with Tone 40 (intention without reservation) which does not necessarily imply volume.

The Purpose of These TRs:  To train the student to get compliance with, and complete a cycle of action on administrative actions and orders, in spite of the randomities, confusions, justifications, excuses, traps and insanities of the 3rd and 6th Dynamics, and to confront such comfortably while doing so.
_________

TR MEST 0

NAME: Confronting MEST.
COMMANDS: “Confront that ____ .” (names object).

POSITION: Student and Coach standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To accustom Student to confront MEST and to hold a position in relation to it. To be there and not do anything else but be there.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach Student to confront exactly what is indicated without vias and without additive gestures or emotional reactions. The Coach chooses a small object connected to the student’s post. Coach points to the object and gives command, “Confront that (names object)”. Student does so. Coach makes no comments. As soon as Student is comfortable confronting the object with no reaction, the Coach acknowledges, chooses a new object and repeats the cycle. The Drill continues using gradiently larger objects for gradiently longer periods of time. 

Flunks are given for breaks of confront, additive actions and reactions. 

Pass when the Student can confront any object comfortably without reaction and has Good Indicators on the Drill.

NOTE: DO NOT flunk the Student if sudden GIs come in and he feels good about the Drill. This is a desired change.

TR MEST 1

NAME: MEST Intention.

COMMANDS: “Move that (object)”.

POSITION: Student and Coach sitting or standing a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To train Student to deliver an order and intention concerning the control and handling of MEST.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach the Student that his own intention has something to do with the handling of MEST in his environment. The Student must deliver the command clearly and with sufficient intention to carry through and accomplish the moving of the MEST object by the Coach. The Coach does NOT Bull-Bait but only carries out the order if it is received clearly and with good intention. A selection of objects from the student’s post is used. The Student acks the Coach for carrying out the command. 

Flunks are given for failure to get the object moved, failure to confront the action or failure to confront the MEST involved. 

The Drill is passed when the Student can do the Drill easily and comfortably with no back-off from the action of getting the MEST moved by another.

TR MEST 2

NAME: Acknowledging MEST Cycles.

COMMANDS: None. Coach originates handling of MEST.

POSITION: Student and Coach standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To train Student to recognise, accept and thoroughly acknowledge the completion of an action in the MEST universe.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach the Student that his acknowledgement can end a cycle of action and that his intention to end it is senior to effort. The Coach originates a cycle of action such as giving the Student a small object, moving an object to another location or picking up an object to look at. Student acknowledges the action when it is complete. Student may do anything at first to get his acknowledgement across but gradiently is smoothed out until he can end cycle effortlessly. 

Coach flunks for failure to recognise when an action is complete, failure to freely accept the action and failure to end the cycle with good intention. 

Pass when the Student can do the Drill easily and comf ortably.

TR MEST 3

NAME: MEST Duplicative Command.

COMMANDS: “Pick up that (named object)”. “Hand it to me please.” “Put it down there.” (Coach indicates place.)

POSITION: Student and Coach standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To train the Student to not give up but to continue his intention to complete a cycle of action in the physical universe. To do each cycle in a new unit of time and not as a blur with other cycles.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach the Student not to be thrown off and not to Q & A if he doesn’t get immediate compliance to his command, and to keep on until he does get the cycle of action completed in the physical universe.

The Coach may stop complying with the cycle of action at any point and hold the cycle frozen at that point. The Student must repeat the last given command until he gets the cycle of action started again and follow it through to completion. No verbal Bull-Baiting or physical originations by Coach.

Flunks are given for poor intentions, failure to repeat the exact command, failure to confront the MEST or confront and get the cycle of action completed in the physical universe.

Pass when the Student can do the drill comfortably and easily.

TR MEST 4

NAME: MEST Cycle Alter-Is.

COMMANDS: Same as MEST 3.

POSITIONs Student and Coach standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To train the Student to get his intended cycle of action carried out in the physical universe in spite of counter-intention and alter-is and to distinguish between a genuine attempt to comply and a deliberate non-compliance or alter-is.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach Student not to be startled or thrown off and not to give up or Q & A with non-compliance, inaccurate or incompetent attempts to complete cycles of action in the physical universe. The Drill is the same as TR MEST 3 with the addition that the Coach may deliberately perform the wrong action at any time or may attempt to pass the object to the Student when he has not asked for it. The Student repeats the order whenever the Coach freezes the cyele of action or deliberatel-z does a wrong conunand. The Student acknowledges the Coach and repeats the order when the Coach dees the commandialxovt correctly or attempts to hand the objeot to the Student when it is not so ordered.

Flunks are given as in MEST TR 3 and also for acknowledging a deliberate non-compliance or alter-is and for failing to acknowledge a genuine attempt at compliance and eventual completion. If the Student aecepts the object on the Coach’s origination it is also a flunk.

Pass when the Student can do the Drill comfortably and easily with no oonfusion or non-confront.

TR PEOPLE 0

NAME: Confronting People.

COMMANDS: “Confront that person.” or “Confront those people.”

POSITION: Coach and Student ambulatory.

PURPOSE: To accustom Student to confronting people and to hold a position in relation to them. To be there and not do anything but be there.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach Student to confront people singly and in groups without vias or additive gestures and without reacting or being afraid or embarassed. The Coach and Student walk round to where various people or groups of people are located at work etc. The Coach indicates a person or group of people to the Student and gives him the appropriate command. The Student complies. The Coach has the Student confront larger and larger groups of people on a gradient. 

Flunks are given for breaking confront or for being disturbed when people stop what they are doing and become interested in the Student.

Pass when the Student can confront people easily and feels good doing the Drill.

TR PEOPLE 1

NAME: People Intention.

COMMANDS: “Hello .”

POSITION: Student and Coach both standing or sitting or one standing and the other sitting, at varying distances apart. Coach doing some action such as reading, writing, sorting papers, tying shoelace, etc.

PURPOSE: To teach the Student that he can get an order and intention across to another person under varying conditions and when they have their attention elaewhere, so that it is received.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach the Student that he can get through to others no matter where their attention may be and that his intention to reach them is the senior factor. The Coach takes up a position and occupies himself with another action. The Student approaches and says, “Hello”. The hello must be delivered so that it reaches the Coach and gets his full attention. The distance between the Student and Coach is increased on a gradient up to 20 feet away. Stress is on correct intention not on volume or force. The Coach acks when the Student reaches him.

Flunks are given for failure to confront or for failing to reach with good intention.

Pass when the Student can do the Drill easily without effort and can get the Coach’s attention from 20 feet away.

TR PEOPLE 2

NAME: People Acknowledgements.

COMMANDS: None. Coach originates.

POSITION: Various. Student and Coach standlng and sitting. The Student may occupy himself with another simple action and Coach approaches Student to give origination.

PURPOSE: To train a Student to use an acknowledgement as a method of correctly ending a cycle of action for other people.

TRAINING STRESS: The Student is trained to acknowledge report or message given sothatthe person knows it was heard and understood. The Coach approaches or gives from a distance a senslble report or message concerning the completion of some simple post cycle. The Student acknowledges Coach so that Coach knows he has been heard and that the cycle is ended. The Coach may then employ one or two other people to give reports to the Student in succession. 

Flunks are given for Student non-confront or for failure to end the cycle with his acknowledgement.

Pass when the Student can comfortably be receipt of a report on a complete cycle of action and can end cycle on the action without under or over acknowledgement.

TR PEOPLE 3

NAME: Group Command.

COMMAND: “Hello.”

POSITION: Student and Coach ambulatory.

PURPOSE: To teach the Student to get an order and intention across to a group of people when their attention is elsewhere, to get an answer and to acknowledge it.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach a Student that a group of people can be approached without upsetting them, and that an order can be given, and compliance acknowledged. Coach indicates a group of people chatting or me such activity (not engaged in important cycles of action) and directs Student, “Say ‘Hello’ to that group.” Student does so without upsetting the group. He repeats the ‘Hello’ if necessary to get a reply from the majority of the group. Student then acknowledges the group.

Flunks are given for failure to confront, failure to get the attention of the group, failure to get an answer from the group (majority) and failure to acknowledge the answer. (If necessary, other students can be used and can pose as a group occupied with other actions.) 

Pass when Student can do the Drill comfortably and successfully without back-off or strain and without upsetting a group.
TR PEOPLE 4

NAME: Selected Group Command.

COMMAND: “Hello.”

POSITION: Coach and Student ambulatory, plus selected group of three or more persons standing or sitting.

PURPOSE: To train the Student to get an order and intention across to a group of people, to get an answer and to acknowledge despite counter-intention from the Group.

TRAINING STRESS: The same as for TR PEOPLE 3 except that a selected group of people are used who are instructed only to look up and answer the Student when his intention really reaches them. (No Bull-Baiting is allowed.) Student repeats the order until he gets compliance and then acknowledges the group.

Flunks are given for back-off, poor intention, failure to get the order complied with and failure to correctly acknowledge the execution of the order. (The reply to the ‘Hello’.)

Pass when the Student is really getting his intention through easlly and he is getting compliance and acknowledging.

TRS MEST BULL-BAIT

TR MEST BB 0

NAME: Confronting MEST with distractions.

COMMANDS: “Confront that (named object).”

POSITION: Student and Coach standing or sitting at a desk with a stack of papers or objects on the desk.

PURPOSE: To accustom Student to confronting MEST and to hold a position in relation to it. To be there and not do anything but be there despite attempts to distract him and prevent him from confronting.

TRAINING STRESS: Same as TR MEST 0 with the addition that the Coach Bull-Baits and verbally attempts to distract the Student from confronting the paper or objects. When the Student can do this comfortably without breaking his confront of the MEST, the Coach may start moving and changing tlle MEST, adding other obJeoNs and taklng them away and shifting them. (Do not get too wild.) Verbal Bull-Baiting is kept in also.

Flunks are given for failure to confront the MEST or the Bull-Baiting.

Pass when the Student can do the Drill comfortably without flunking.

TR MEST BB 1

NAME: Intention with Distraction.

COMMANDS: “Hand me that book.”

POSITION: Student and Coach seated a comfortable distance apart. Coach has a book on his knees.

PURPOSE: To train the Student to deliver an order and intention concerning the control and handling of MEST and get compliance despite distractions and attempts to prevent him doing so.

TRAINING STRESS: Student is trained to get his intention concerning the control and handling of MEST across to the Coach and get compliance in spite of Bull-Baiting and resistance by the Coach. The Coach only gives the Student the book when the intention gets across to him strongly enough that he wants to comply.

Flunks are given for breaks of confront, giving up and poor intention. Pass when Student can do the Drill comfortably, getting his intention across without being affected by the Bull-Baiting and getting compliance to the command.

TR MEST BB 2

NAME: MEST Cycle Acknowledgement with Distractions.

COMMANDS: None. Coach originates handling of MEST.

POSITION: Student and Coach standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To train Student to recognise, accept and thoroughly acknowledge the completion of an action in the physical universe despite distractions nnd attempts to prevent him doing so.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach the student to recognise and acknowledge the completion of a cycle of action in the physical universe in spite of distraction and “Noise” and attempts to prevent recognition of the fact that the cycle has occurred. And that his acknowledgement can end a cycle of action inspite of noise, and that his intention to do so is senior to effort. The Coach originates a cycle of action such as moving an object from one location to another. Before, during, and after doing so he attempts to distract the Student by Bull-Baiting and chatter so as to prevent the Student realizing that the cycle occurred or to prevent him from acknowledging it. Student learns to observe the cycle in the MEST universe rather than listen to the Coach. 

Coach flunks for Student failure to recognise and acknowledge when the cycle is completed, failure to accept the cycle freely and failure to end the cycle with good intention. Also for becoming the effect of Bull-Baiting. 

Pass when the student can do the Drill easily without flunks.

TR MEST BB 3

NAME: MEST Duplication Command with Distractions.

COMMANDS: Any orders composed of 2 or 5 separate simple actions such as “Pick up that pen and put it on the chair then place it beside the paper in the middle of the desk.”

POSITION: Student and Coach standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To train the Student to not give up but to continue his intention to complete a cycle of action in the physical universe despite attempts to distract him and prevent him from doing so. To do each cycle in a new unit of time and not as a blur with other cycles.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach the Student not to be thrown off and not to Q & A if he doesn’t get immediate compliance with his order. To continue to repeat the order with full intention until he gets the cycle completed in the physical universe. The Coach tries to throw the Student off with Bull-Baiting or by not completing the cycle of action.

Flunks are given for earlier TR failures, for poor intention and for failing to get compliance.

Pass when the Student can comfortably do the drill.

TR MEST BB 4

NAME: MEST Cycle Alter-Is and Distractions.

COMMANDS: Same as in MEST BB 3.

POSITION: Student and Coach standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To train the Student to get his intended cycle of action carried out in the physical universe despite counter-intentions, alter-is and other distractions and excuses.

TRAINING STRESS: Same as in MEST BB 3 with the addition that Student must acknowledge originations concerning the cycle being performed by the coach when necessary to get the order complied with accurately. The Coach may muddle up the sequence of the actions and also do verbal Bull-Baiting, reasons why the cycle is impossible, etc.

Flunks are given for failures on earlier TRs in this series and particularly for poor intention or failure to get the cycle completed.

Pass when Student can successfully do the drill comfortably, using intention but not effort.

TR PEOPLE BB 0

NAME: Confronting People with Distractions.

COMMANDS: “Confront that Person.”

POSITION: Coach and 3rd person standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart. Student a comfortable distance to the side of them.

PURPOSE: To train the Student to get one person to confront another at his order and not be thrown off or Q & A with reactions, excuses and reasons why this should not be done.

TRAINING STRESS: To train the Student to use his confront and intention through the “via” of another person where the one person may not be willing to confront and the other not willing to be confronted. The Student gives the order to the Coach who complies or gives reasons or excuses why he should not. The other person may give the Coach reasons why he should not be confronted but may not speak to the Student. The Student must succeed in getting the Coach to confront the 3rd person despite that person’s objections.

The Coach complies when the Student’s confront and intention makes him want to do so.

The Coach flunks Student for failure to get the Coach to confront the third person.

Pass when the Student can do Drill without flunks.
TR PEOPLE BB 1

NAME : People Intention wlth Distractions.

COMMANDS: “Give that book to (person’s name)”

POSITION: Student and Coach standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart with a 3rd person a little way off. Student has book.

PURPOSE: To train the Student to get his intention across on the via of another person and to get the Command through despite distractions.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach Student that he can get his intention to carry through to a 3rd person or persons via a relay terminal. Student gives Coach the order, “Give that book to ___.” Coach may give excuses and reasons not doing it and the 3rd person can do the same. Coach may return to the Student with the book and “explain” how the 3rd person won’t accept or let him carry out the command. Stress is on getting the Student to improve his intention and get compliance to his orders.

Flunks are given for failure to get the Coach to comply, for Q & A, for giving up and for an earlier TR outness.

Pass when the Student can easily get the command complied with by the Coach.

TR PEOPLE BB 2

NAME: Return Compliance and Acknowledgement.

COMMANDS: “Tell (3rd person’s name) to bring me that book.”

POSITION: Student and Coach standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart with 3rd person a little way off.

PURPOSE: To train Student to sret a command carried out in the physical universe via another person.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach Student that he can get physical actions complied with via another person, regardless of the excuses or reasons why of both persons. The Student hands the Coach the book and gives the order, “Tell ____ to bring me that book “ Command with intention are repeated until the 3rd person complies at which time the Student acknowledges him fully. Coach may Q & A with the 3rd person’s unwillingness and attempts to alter-is and non-comply.
 
Flunks are given for any failure of earlier TRs and for falling to have enough intention to get the Coach to get the 3rd person to comply and for failure to acknowledge the completed cycle of action.

TR PEOPLE BB 3

NAME: Command Relay.

COMMANDS: “Tell ____ to give that book to ____ “ (3rd and 4th persons named).

POSITION: Student and Coach standing or sitting a comfortable distance apart with a 3rd person standing a few steps further off holding a book and a 4th person a few steps further off still.
PURPOSE: To train Student to get a command complied with on a relay.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach Student that his intention can be stepped up to a point where it will carry through terminals on a relay. The student gives the command to the Coach who orders the 3rd person to give the book to the 4th. The Coach may Q & A with the command, with the 3rd person’s unwillingness to do it and with the 4th person’s inattention or unwillingness to receive the book.

Flunks are given for any break up of the Student’s TRs or failure to persist and get full compliance.

Pass when thle Student can get all persons on a relay to carry out the command.

TR PEOPLE BB 4

NAME: Group Compliance.

COMMAND: “Give that paper to those people and tell them to put it on their table.”

POSITION: Student standing. Coach and 3 or more other people seated in 2 groups at 2 tables a few paces apart.

PURPOSE: To train the Student to get compliance with his orders and intentions between groups of people and intentions between groups of people and to teach him him intention is senior to effort.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach the atudent that his persistent intention can overcome the counter-intentions of groups of people and that he can get them to comply with his orders despite group think, counter effort and other distractions, The Student gives the people at one table the command and has them comply and gets the cycle completed. He may order only one group. These may give excuses and argue between themselves and give reasons why it can’t he done - so may the second group when the paper is taken to them. The Student repeats the order with full intention to the first group or a person from the first group until it is fully complied with.

Flunks are given for Student failure to persist, for breaking-up or any other TR outness.

Pass when Student has succeeded in getting full ccmpliance with ease and knows he can handle groups with intention.

TR R/W MEST

NAME: Reach and withdraw MEST.

COMMANDS: “Reach that (named object).”  “Withdraw from that (named object).” Coach acknowledging Student for execution of command.

POSITION: Student and Coach ambulatory.

PURPOSE: To put the Student at cause over the MEST of his post and area.

TRAINING STRESS: The Coach indicates different objects on a gradiently larger scale and sees that the Student executes the comnands. The Coach asks from time to time, “How are you doing?” The Coach handles any physical manifestations of the Student by asking “What is happening?”

The TR is run to a win for the Student.

TR R/W PEOPLE

NAME: Reach and Withdraw from People.
 
COMMANDS: “Touch that (named object).” 

POSITION: Student and Coach and third person ambulatory.

PURPOSE: To familiarize the person with handling people.

TRAINING STRESS: Student must get the third person to comply with his command in spite of the Coach’s physical attempts to block the person from doing so. The Student may in turn block the coach so he can’t interfere or may move him out of the way so that the third person can comply with the command. Stress should be on intention not on force. 

The Drill is run until the Student can quite comfortably take whatever action is necessary to get his command complied with and feels easy about tne necessary Reach and Withdraw from the Coach and third person in order to do so. The Coach may use verbal Bull-Baiting also.

The TR is run to a win and Cog for the Student.

Developed and Piloted aboard
Flag by
Training & Services Aide

by order of LRH

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:BW:mh 
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

7 FERBUARY 1971-1 R
REVISED & REISSUED 17 JULY 1974 AS BTB
Remimeo
All Orgs	CANCELS
Staff	HCO BULLETIN OF 7 FEBRUARY 1971-1
College	SAME TITLE
FEBC Course

(The only revision is in the Reference Section and in paragraph 2: HCOB 7 FEB 71 “Admin TRs” has been revised to read BTB 7 FEB 71 “Admin TRs”.)

ADMIN TRS CORRECTION

References: 	BTB 7 FEB 1971 Admin TRs
	HCOB 24 MAY 1968 Coaching

It has become apparent that coaching Admin TRs, especially the last few, can be very difficult if the coach is double hatted as a Bull-Baiter. If he becomes too intolved with the Bull-Baiting he can easily miss flunks on the Student. Also, buttons are not easily duplicated, as the action which caused the Student to break his confront might not have been seen. This either hangs the Student with a loss or puts him into self-coaching.

Therefore, on these TRs involving more than 2 people (specifically TR People BB 1, BB 2, BB 3, BB 4) the Coach does not Ball-Bait. He is an additional person to those doing the drills as laid out in the Admin TR BTB. He stands or sits close to the Student and simply observes him. If the Bull-Baiters cause the Student to break his confront or flub in any way, the Coach flunks the Student and ensures that the Bull-Baiters flatten the exact button that caused the reaction.

In short, he controls the Whole TR. It is up to him to see that the Student gets the gains that can be his from doing the TRs standardly. He coaches per the HCOB Coaching, seeing that the Student is given a series of wins on constantly toughening gradient.

Robin Hubbard 
Director of Training Flag

Revised & Reissued as BTB 
by Flag Mission 1234

I/Cs CPO Andrea Lewis 
2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU

for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:SW:AL:MH:RH:mh 
Copyright © 1971, 1973, 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

7 FEBRUARY 1971-2
Remimeo 	CORRECTS PAGE FOUR,
Scn Orgs 	DRILL THREE LAST COMMAND
SO Orgs 	OF BTB 7 FEB 71
Staff College
FBEC Course 	ISSUED 21 APRIL 1977
RE-NUMBERED 9 OCTOBER 1977
RE-INSTATES BTB 7 FEB 71-1R

ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING DRILLS
ADMIN TRS

Page four Drill Three, last command should read as follows:

“Put it down there.” (Student indicates place)

BPL & BTB Appeal Line

for 
AVU Aide 

for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:AH:MH:AH:dr 
Copyright © 1971, 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 OCTOBER 1965
REISSUED 20 EEBRUARY 1979
Remimeo
Field Staff Members
Sthll Grads
Sthil Students
All Staff
Missions

DISSEMINATION DRILL

The Dissemination Drill has four exact steps that must be done with a person you are disseminating to.

There is no set patter, nor any set words you say to the person.

There are four steps that must be accomplished with the individual and they are listed in the order that they should be done:

1.	Contact the individual: This is plain and simple. It just means making a personal contact with someone, whether you approach them or they approach you.

2.	Handle: If the person is wide open to Scientology, and reaching, this step can be omitted as there is nothing to handle. Handle is to handle any attacks, antagonism, challenge or hostility that the individual might express towards you and/or Scientology. Definition of “handle”: to control, direct. “Handle” implies directing an acquired skill to the accomplishment of immediate ends. Once the individual has been handled you then

3.	Salvage: Definition of salvage: “to save from ruin”. Before you can save someone from ruin, you must find out what their own personal ruin is. This is basically - What is ruining them? What is messing them up? It must be a condition that is real to the individual as an unwanted condition, or one that can be made real to him.

4.	Bring to understanding: Once the person is aware of the ruin, you bring about an understanding that Scientology can handle the condition found in 3. This is done by simply stating Scientology can, or by using data to show how it can. It’s at the right moment on this step that : one hands the person a selection slip, or one’s professional card, and directs him to the service that will best handle what he needs handled.

These are the steps of the Dissemination Drill. They are designed so that an understanding of them is necessary and that understanding is best achieved by being coached on the drill.

COACHING THE DRILL

Position: Coach and student may sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart, or they may stand ambulatory.
 
Purpose: To enable a Scientologist to disseminate Scientology effectively to individuals. To enable one to contact, handle, salvage and bring to upderstanding another being. To prepare a Scientologist so that he won’t be caught “rlatrooted” when being attsoked or questioned by another.

Patter: there is no set patter. The coach plays the part of a non-Scientologist and displays an attitude about Sclentology upon being approached by the student. The student must then handle, 6alvage, and bring the coach to understanding. When the student can comfortably do these steps on a given coach’s attitude, the coach then assumes another attitude, etc, and the drill is continued until the student is confident and comfortable about doing thcsc steps with any type of person. This drill is coached as follows:

The coach says, “Start”. The-student must then (1) contact the coach, either by approaching the coach or being approached by the coach. The student introduces himself and Scientology or not, depending upon the mocked-up situation. The student then (2) handles any invalidation of himself and/or Scientology, any challenge, attack or hostility displayed by the coach. The student then (3) salvages the coach. In this step the student must locate the ruin (problem or difficulty the coach has with life), and point out that it is ruinous and get the person to see that it is.

When (3) has been done, you then (4) bring about an understanding that Scientology can do something about it. Example: the coach has admitted a problem with women. The student simply listens to him talk about his problem and then asserts “Well, that’s what Scientology handles. We have processing, etc, etc.” Whe4 the coach indicates a realization that he did have a problem and that something might be done about it, the student ! Purpose: him with a selection slip, or a card, routing hlm to the service that would best remedy the condition. 

The coach must flunk for co nm lags, nervousness, laughter or non-eoniront. The coach would similarly flunk the student for failure to (1) contact, (2) handle, (3) salvage, and (4) bring to understanding.

Training Stress: Stress giving the student wins. This is done by using a gradient scale in the coach’s portrayal of various attitudes, and staying with any selected untl} the student can handle it comfortably. As the student becomes better, the coach can portray a more difficult attitude.

Stress bringing about for the student the accomplishment of the purpose of this drill.

A list of things to handle and another of ruins to discover can be mxde up and used.

Do not specialize in either antagonistic attitudes or an eagerness to know about Sclentology. Use both and other attitudes. One meets them all.

L. RON HUBBARD 
FOUNDER 
LRH:ml:sd:jk 
Copyright © 1965, 1979 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESLRVED

HUBBARD COMUUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 DECEMBER 1979
Remimeo
FSMs
Dept 17 Pers
Distrib Sees
Org Execs
Missions
FSM Checksheet
Magazine Article
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL FSMs

(Ref: 	HCO PL 11 Dec 79 I 	DEPARTMENT 17 
		COURSE CHECKSHEETS)

As a Field Staff Member you have the rewarding purpose of getting people into Scientology through disseminating. You do this by bringing about an understanding of what Scientology can do thus creating a desire for service.

Now, in order for you FSMs to achieve your purpose and obtain your product, you have to have a local org which has well-presented intro services and an adequate array of Department 17 courses.

Intro services are defined as immediate and fast, free, one evening or 1/2 to 1 hour services. The successful ones are te6tings intro tapes and lectures, information, intro films, Personal Efficiency Intro Lecture and new book sales. These are for raw public, friends, etc. and are used to gain interest and involvement and to get sign-ups for Dept 17 services or even major services.

Dept 17 paid services are those services which give the public what is needed and wanted to handle tbeir ruins. They bring the public up to the recognition that Scientology and Dianetics contain the data needed to handle life.

I’m going to give you the steps that lead up to your need of org services and how you utilize them. It’s a little program to follow and if you do these things plus apply the data you have obtained on the SPECIALIST FSM HAT, you will have guaranteed successes as an FSM.

1. 	You approach the individual.

2.	Provide him with some kind of an introductory service.

2A. 	Alternate: Sell him a book.

3.	Find his ruin on the spot.

4.	Get him onto a Dept 17 course which will handle his ruin.

5.	Collect the commission right then and there.

5A. 	Sell him a book.

6. 	Monitor his progress on his Dept 17 Courses and get him selected for a major service the minute he’s ready for one.
An example routine that you would follow as an tSM would be to get the guy down to an intro lecture at your local org and then talk to him and find his ruin and then recommend him right on through a Dept 17 course, Collect the commission for the Dept 17 course and then select him up the line - to other Dept 17 courses or a major service.

You must remember that you can always select for a major service or major training as your first option. You may very well encounter individuals who are ready for a maJor service. after reading a book for example.

FSMs ARE TO DEMAND ORG SERVICES

Now there’s a point that must be made here. It is your hat as an FSM to demand these services from the org and it is the org’s hat to supply you with the services you are demanding.

If the org doesn’t have the course that your selectee needs, you have an alternate. LRH books. You should have a command of what books contain data which will help the person you are handling. You can always sell a book as an alternative because the data will always be in a book.

If you do this handling and a Dept 17 service is still called for, then you must recommend that the course he needs gets offered by the org. This is especially true ii you find a particular ruin is coming up with your selectees and is becoming dominant.

If your org isn’t providing you with intro and Dept 17 services then go to the org’s Distribution Secretary or the Executive Director and tell him what is occurring and what you need. Remember also that you always have recourse through the SO #1 line, so if the org isn’t delivering despite going to the above named execs then write to me and I will see that the scene is sorted out but fast!

A working Department 17 that is effective, efficient and upstat can save you endless hours of making sales talks and endless weeks of wasted time with prospects.

TEAM WORK

Intro services and Dept 17 courses are the answer to an FSM’s prayers. They are part of your tools and activity.

As much as you need the orgs for these services, she orgs need you, as you’re supplying them with their future and don’t you let them forget it.

As a team, working towards expansion of Scientology, you can’t help but prosper

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

LRH:gal
Copyright © 1979
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead. Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1959
Franchise Holders 
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs
DISSEMINATION TIPS

For a very long time we have been working on optimum dissemination to find out if there was such a thing.

Over the years we have found that in order of importance the following methods were workable.

Personal Contact: This by far is the very best method of dissemination. It is better done on individual basis rather than talking to groups since there is the tactor in groups of being able to escape by saying “they aren’t talking to me”. Personal contact then means just that. No matter whether it is done to fnends and then to other people or secondarily to total strangers there is nothing better than personal contact.

Books: Personal contact usually requires books to back it up. But books make a personal contact all by themselves if they can be put in the right places. If the library nearest you had some book about Dianetics and Scientology granted by you to them and your name and address was in the front as donor, you would get people calling on you. HCO WW Book Admin recently made books available for this purpose at a very reduced cost. You send in the cost of the books and the books are sent to your local library-providing you give HCO WW lhe address-and the books are sent with your name and address in them straight to the local library. Books placed in bookstores works mildly but it should be done. Books such as Problems of Work or Dianetics Evolution of a Science should be on hand in plenty to put in people’s hands. HCO WW is making stacks and stacks of these available to you at very small cost as soon as we can get enough copies. You can get them by the hundreds from Saint Hill and trom your Central Org when this gets going. Dianetics Evolution of a Science is available now in a small edition in the UK and you can get it only from Saint Hill at £2 for 50 copies at a crack. That’s less than they cost us. Books we have learned the hard way must be heavily in circulation or we get nobody in the front door. You can always tell a Central Org slump is coming whenever booksales drop off. Central Org boom occurs about two or three months after book sales go up. All Central Org promotion gen begins with “given books in circulation then . . .” so you can easily see that the success of any neighbourhood depends on getting books into circulation in that neighbourhood. At 40% discount an auditor can get them into a bookstore without losing on it.

A comment: We are trying so hard to make HCO Saint Hill self supporting because we want to get books collected in quantity and out at low ‘cost. If you are trying to work without books to pass around you’re in trouble.

Casualty Contact: A fruitful source of HAS Co-Audit people is casualty contact. This is very old, is almost never tried and is always roaringly successful. providing the auditor goes about it in roughly the right way. Using his Minister’s card an auditor need only barge into any nonsectarian hospital, get permission to visit the wards from the Superintendent, mentioning nothing about processing but only about taking care of people’s souls, to find himself wonderfully welcome. Ministers almost never make such rounds. Some hospitals are sticky about this sort of thing, but it’s only necessary to find another. It’s fabulous what one can get done in a hospital with a touch assist and locational processing. Don’t pick on the very bad off unconscious cases. Hit the fracture ward and the maternity ward. Go around and say hello to the people and ask if you can do anything for them. Now here’s how auditors have lost on this one. They omit the following steps They fail to have a card with their Ministerial name on it with their phone number. They fail to have a telephone answering service. They fail to tell the people they snap away from death’s yawning door that they can have more of this stuff simply by calling in. They get so involved in the complexities of medical (ha) treatment and so, otitraged at some of the things .they see going on that they get into rows with medicos and the hospital staff. And also they pick unconscious patients or people who are halfway exteriorised already. This is a pretty routine drill really. You get permission to visit. You go in and give patients a cheery smile. You want to know if you can do anything Sor them, you give them a card and tell them to come arountl to your group and really Bet well, and you give them a touch assist if they seem to necd it but only if they’re willing. And you for sure make sure that somebody is on the other end when they ring up. Giving them a schedule of your HAS Co-Audit will avail much. I’ve got a book scheduled the “sick person” as a working title that will make good fodder for this. But your statement, “The modern scientific church can cure things like that. Come around and see,” will work. It’s straight recruiting.

Newspaper Ads: Costly and hard to get taken sometimes, newspaper ads still work very well for the HAS Co-Audit. The best ad to date on actual test is “no matter how bad your problem is, something can be done about it, phone . . .” also, “Body? Mind? Spirit? Who are you? Phone . . .” also works.

Talking to Groups: This seldom produces much results and when you give away literature too this isn’t cheap. I am sure it is worthwhile for a good speaker and has been done with success but it is mostly useful in the production of future contacts and is not very useful otherwise in general experience.

Co-operating with Groups: This is almost totally unworkable according to past record. A group is composed of individuals. As a group it normally has a different goal than you. Business firms in some areas responded well but in the US the record of this is very poor. It is far far better to spend weeks getting to meet the man in charge and then handle only his personal problems, and only then get into what his group is doing. A straight attack on groups is a waste of time.

Newspaper Stories, letters to editors, these are all more or less a liability and should be avoided.

Radio ads have produced results but only when accompanied by lectures on the subject. Radio spot ads are worthless.

Posters and billboards have produced now and then some very spectacular results. This depends on what they say. In the LA area a bunch of posters scattered around town once produced a very heavy attendance.

This has the advantage of being cheap.

General comment: What you are up against in disseminating Scientology is the generality of what we do. When you cover all of life and all living things you don’t have enough point of concentration for people in general to follow you. They get such hazy ideas of it all and life to them is wrapped in such covert obscurities that they don’t track with you, they just go into their engrams and know that whatever it is you’re talking about must be beyond them. To disseminate successfully you have to have an APPARENT goal that is understandable to the audience or person at his tone level and with which he will agree. Show him then something about himself and the battle is pretty well won. We try too often for a total etfect on people and try to tell them everything there is in a single moment. The motto here is: don’t try to overwhelm, just penetrate. If we attack with our eyes open we will guide this penetration just as we guide a session. We don’t try to sell Scientology then. We give an apparent and understandable goal of what we’re doing and then put the person or persons to whom we’re talking into a state of being interested in their own cases. The use of the Dianetic idea of the Reactive Mind is almost infallible. I once told a casual fellow passenger on a short train ride: “Say, did you hear about them isolating the freudian unconscious?” I said this because he looked like a scholarly bloke. And he said, “No, who did that?” And I said, “Oh, some scientists.” And I said, “Yes, they found it was the sum of all man’s bad experiences and nothing more mysterious than that.” And he said, “That’s interesting.” And I said, “What was your last bad experience?” and he said . . . well, he was in session and called me up later. Another fellow I met on a bus. I said, “They’ve found the dynamic principle of existence and it’s about time.” And he said, “What?” and I said, “Yes, they know what makes a man tick now.” It looked for a while like the machine would win and he said, “What was it?” and I said, “The urge to survive.” And he said, “Well I always thought it would be something like that.” And I said, “I don’t know. Have you ever had the urge to succumb?” and of course he was in session too, only I had to get off. I once tied up the whole US Senate lunch room with these remarks, and if you can get a senator to listen instead of talk, you’ve done something. Another time on a boat I said dreamily so a girl could overhear me: “I wonder if man really does have a soul?” And she said, “Oh I don’t think so really, isn’t it all a lot of religious talk?” And I said, “Try not to be three feet back of your head.” Gave her an hour or two of processing and she’s still interested.

Don’t try to persuade. Penetrate. Don’t try to overwhelm. Penetrate. And even a newspaper reporter will fall in your lap. (The last one that came down to see what mud he could sling didn’t sling any because I showed him an E-Meter, told him not to say anything and then located, by asking questions which only the meter answered, his last car wreck, who was hurt and what part of his body was injured and how many years ago it was. Man, he looked at that E-Meter like he was a bird and it was a cobra. But he sailed off into a full run of the engram and I walked him through it three times until he had good somatics turned on, told him I wasn’t going to really put him in it because it would hurt, and ended the demonstration. He didn’t write any mud.)

Take an E-Meter to a boy scout meeting and watch the fun. Send notes to their parents when you found them in a bad way. Use an E-Meter as a dissemination weapon.

When you can do these things to people they know we know what we’re talking about. You don’t have to explain.

Don’t explain. Penetrate. Don’t overwhelm. Penetrate. And you’ll have HAS Co-Audit going in no time.

We are the first group on earth that knew what they were talking about. All right, sail in. The world’s ours. Own it.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:brb.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

E  X  E  C  U  T  I  V  E    D  I  R  E  C  T  I  V  E

SO ED 1316 INT 	21 October 1979
	Corrected
	9 January 1980
All Orgs
FSM Hat Course
Staff Training
Officers

P-I-L-O-T

NEW FSM TRs - CONTROLLING A CONVERSATION

CANCELS 	SO ED 1308 INT
	FSM BREAKTHROUGH

These TRs have been specifically devised to teach the student to CONTROL A CONVERSATION.

All one is teaching here is TOTAL CONTROL of a convereation. One can see that the target is not to fight with public or SPs, but simply to control and guide the conversation where one wants it to go.

These FSM TRs in no way excuse a person from not attending a regualr TRs course and are not a substitute for regular TRs but are a special application of them. A regular TRs Course is not a prerequisite to FSM TRs even though they would help enormously. Nothing in this changes any data in HCOBs regarding TRs or substitutes for any HCOBs on TRs.

Basic TRs 0-4 must be done and passed before doing these TRs.

The book WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY is used throughout the TRs.

1. 	OT TR 0 - Done per HCOB 16 Aug 71R Issue II.

A.	PURPOSE: To train the student to be there comfortably and confront another person. The idea is to get the student able to BE there comfortably, in a position three feet in front of another person, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there.

METHOD: Student and coach sit facing each other with eyes closed. There is no conversation. This is a silent drill. There is NO twitching, moving, confronting with a body part, “system” or vias used to confront or anything else added to BE there. One will usually see blackness or an area of the room when one’s eyes are closed. BE THERE, COMFORTABLY AND CONFRONT.

2.	TR 0 - CONFRONTING. (Ref: HCOB 16 Aug 71R Iss II)

A. 	PURPOSE: To train the student to confront another person who ls manifesting various levels of the Tone Scale.

	METHOD: Coach uses different Tone Scale Levels Physically (silnetly) as he sits opposite the student. The student confronts the coach’s various manifestations of the Tone Scale Levels until he can do it comfortably.
B. 	PURPOSE: To teach the student that he has a choice of confronting or not confronting various tone scale levels and to train him in not confronting by choice.
	METHOD: Student and coach in same position as in above TR, coach continues to show various tone scale manifestations. The student now non-cpnfronts (by choice) the coach’s various manifestations. This is done until the student can do this drill comfortably. One way to non-confront by choice is to walk away.

3. 	TR 0 BULLBAIT -  CONFRONTING BULLBAITED. (REF: HCOB 16 Aug 71R Issue II)

A. 	PURPOSE: To train the student to confront another person who is pushing his buttons. The whole idea is for the student to sit there comfortably without being thrown off, distracted or reacting in any way to what the coach says or does.

METHOD: Coach, in this drill must push the student’s buttons and can do anything except leave his chair. The student must BE there comfortably and not be distracted.

B. 	PURPOSE: To teach the student that he has a choice of confronting or not confronting someone pushing his buttons and to train him in not confronting by choice.

METHOD: Coach pushes the student’s buttons and can do anything except leave his chair. The student non-confronts (by choice) the coach’s actions. This is done until he can successfully non-confront the coach at his own choice.

4. 	TR 1 - DELIVERING A COMMUNICATION.

	PURPOSE: To train the student to deliver a communication about Scientology to another without flinching or trying to overwhelm or using a via.

	METHOD: Student uses the book WHAT IS SCIENTOiOGY? to get something across to the coach, asking a question or making a statement. Coach answers easily as per normal TR 1.

5. 	TR 2 - ANSWERING QUESTIONS.

A. 	PURPOSE: To teach the student to fully answer a question to the satisfaction of the coach.

	METHOD: Student and coach must both have a copy of WIS and must both be at the same page. Coach asks a question and the student must answer out of WIS without flustering or being unsure. The coach flunks when he does not feel his question has been fully answered.

B. 	PURPOSE: To teach the student to take it off the line of questioning by choice, questions he does not want to answer.

	METHOD: Coach asks a question and the student answers in such a way as to take it off that line of questioning and onto something else (BY CHOICE). Coach flunks when student cannot successfully answer to steer the line of questioning.
 
6.	TR 3 - GETTING THE QUESTION ANSWERED.

A. 	PURPOSE: To teach the student to get his questions lanswered smoothly.

	METHOD: Student uses data from WIS (or asks something like - “Have you read the book DMSMH?”). Coach answers with searching or embarrasing or antagonistic questions about the student. Student must handle and repeat his question to get his question answered.

B. 	PURPOSE: To teach the student to get his questions answered no matter what the circumstances are.

	METHOD: Student uses data from WIS (or asks something like “Have you read the book DMSMH?”). Coach refuses to answer - either by remaining silent, being antagonistic or stating “I don’t want to talk to you”. Student must handle and get his question answered.

7. 	TR 4 - CONTROLLING CONVERSATIONS BY HANDLING ORIGINATIONS:

A. 	PURPOSE: To train the student to fully handle an antago or crltical remark or statement and get the conversation back on the tracks.

	METHOD: Student uses data from WIS (questions and statements) and starts up a discussion. Coach goes along with it but in the middle of the discussion throws in a critical or antago comment or question. Student must handle it smoothly and get it answered and get the discussion back on the tracks.

B. 	PURPOSE. To train the student to handle the critical or antago question or comment (by choice) and must steer the conversation onto some other - positive - track, (using WIS).

	METHOD: Student uses data from WIS (questions and statements) and starts up a discussion. Coach goes along with it but in the middle of the discussion throws in a critical or antago comment or question. The student must handle it (acking or not by choice) and must steer the conversation onto some other - positive - track (using WIS).

Snr C/ S Int

Authorized by AVC 
WDC 
and 
L. RON HUBBARD

for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:LRH:WDC:AVC:DM:gal:pr

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 MAY AD15
(REVISED & REISSUED 14 JANUARY 1968)
REISSUED 30 APRIL 1979
Remimeo
Franchise
Saint Hill
Students
Post Public
B. Board

FIELD AUDITORS BECOME STAFF

(Cancels HCO Pol Ltrs March 26 ‘65 & March 30 ‘65)

All field auditors of the level of HBA and above are appointed herewith FIELD STAFF MEMBERS of their nearest Scientology organization .

Their rank is FIELD STAFF MEMBER (Provisional).

They come directly under the Department of Clearing, Director of Clearing of their nearest org.

The purpose of the Field Staff Member is:

TO HELP LRH CONTACT, HANDLE, SALVAGE AND BRING TO UNDERSTANDING THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE’S THE PEOPLES OF EARTH.

Their pay shall be in terms of commissions and therefore should be equal to that of general staff members in the Orgs themselves, depending only on the activity of the Field Staff Member. The Field Staff Member is not on proportionate pav anc is not on payroll for tax purposes.

The situation is this: the idea of the practitioner setting up a practice to audit preclears must be wrong because it is used with poor success by new doctors and psychiatrists; it also has worked poorly for doctors as groups as they more and more require government subsidy, personally require large borrowed sums to set up new practices and depend for affluence on laws passed to protect them and give them a monopoly; a monopoly held in place by force alone soon vanishes. Further, their system took over 700 years to establish them to a point where they could demand the legislation needed to protect them proof: examine the status of a medical man in the centuries betueen the Great Plague and today century by century and see the tiny progress each century in the standing of their profession and their security.

We neither have nor need 700 years.

Civilization is successful only because it is a team. The individual in our present society has a rough time.

We are a team. We have a big job to do. We need every one aboard. Hence the appointment.

This appointment should come as no surprise as we were waiting only for the completion of technology to press the boom buttons. And one of them was to reclaim and enrol as staff members everyone we have ever trained.
 
COMMISSIONS

The official Scientology Organization to which the Field Staff Member is attached will pay the Field Staff Member a percentage of all training and processing fees received by that organization through its Field Staff Members.

This system has already been piloted some years ago and its administration design is now smoothed out. However it must be followed closely.

The Field Staff Member selects the person to he trained or processed after direct personal contact with the person and issues to that person a paper stating the contacted person has been selected. This paper bears the HOUR, DATE and PLACE of the selection.

The paper is in quadruplicate. The original goes to the person selected (selectee), the second copy is sent promptly to the Field Staff Member’s org’s Advanced Booking Registrar, the third to the Director of Clearing and the fourth copy is held by the Field Staff Member.

If the selectee appears at the org, presents the SELECTION PAPER to the Cashier and enrols for training and processing, and pays, the org sends at once a commission of 10% for total cash. There is no waiting in sending the commission. The org sends the sum at once. 10% is also paid in memberships bought by the selectee if accompanied by another selection paper marked Membership also issued by the Field Staff Member.

Example of Commission: A selectee presents the Selection Paper at the Org Accounts Office and pays for the services bought totally in cash. The org promptly sends the Field Staff Member 10% of the whole payment. Example: A selectee presents the Selection Paper of the Field Staff Member at the org accounts office and pays for the service in cash. The org promptly sends the Field Staff Member 10% of the total sum. These both end the transaction. There is no later amount owing the Field Staff Member when the credit extended is paid off. If any Fieid Staff Member gave the selectee another later paper the selectee then used, again commission would be paid by the org.

The person selected is directed by the Field Staff Member to Reception at the nearest organization, the name and address of which is given to the selesctee.

No cash for memberships may be taken by the Field Staff Member as Memberships must be paid for only to the org Accounts Cashier.

The preclear or student may be selected as often or as many times as the Field Staff Member can do so.

If the person is not, however, selected again by the Field Staff Alember after training or processing, the org may select the person once more and no commission is paid. The org does not have to have a selection paper to train or process a person.

The org will honour and pay commission on the selection papers presented to Accounts by the selectee. It is the responsibility of the Field Staff blember to inform the selectee to present his or her selection paper.

EXISTING CENTRES

Existing Scientology Centres are not official orgs. The Field Staff Member is not attached to unofficial orgs. However, a centre or group or group of auditors may send a selectee as a student or PC providing it is a Field Staff Member that signs the selection form. Centres may not have Field Staff Alembers of their own unless the Centre if owned and operated by Scientology, and Field Staff Members may not send PCs or students to any but official orgs. To do so constitutes suppression of Scientology official orgs as this is a Scientology org activity, not designed for centres or franchise holders to use until they are officialized and their service can be supervised. Remember, to use this system all a centre has to do to use the Field Staff Member system is become official and meet requirements for a new org.

FORMS

Where no forms exist the Field Staff Member can write on plain paper, preferably pink (the org flash colour for Accounts matters) and using carbon or hand copying can make the forms himself.

The form must bear the HOUR, DATE and PLACE, the block printed name and address of the selectee and the block printed name and address and certificate initials and certificate number of the Field Staff Member and what the selectee is selected for (membership, training or processing) and some approximation of arrival date at the org.

Orgs may care to furnish forms, but this is all they contain.

MEMBERSHIP AND RATE CARDS

The Field Staff Member should be supplied with book lists, membership descriptions and the org rate card. He or she should give copies of these to the selectee if the Field Staff Member has them.

BOOKS

The Field Staff Member may buy books from an org and sell them for his own profit. Any discounts are arranged with the org and regulated by the Director of Publications, Saint Hill.

ORG MEMBERS

Other org staff members may not use this system as they are general, not field, staff members but where they have had personal PCs before taking org employment they may handle the matter as a Field Staff Member would if done within the first three months of Org employment and the selection was done before org employment.

CERTIFICATE REOUIRED

Any auditor who has any certificate including Hubbard Book Auditor may become a Field Staff Member.

No classification is required.

No other stipulations may be locally made.

PITFALL

This is all taken from my own experience when I was the only field auditor there was.

I was hammered at by many to process them and became quite overworked. I was only saved by org formation to which I could turn over my traffic.

The moment a field auditor starts individual processing he becomes too pinned down to promote and in a year or so fails therefore or has to turn to other activities.
I got my PCs by casual personal contact and by letting a book circulate (the Original Thesis) and by local personal promotion. I ran a PE type course (not as high as an HAS) and at one time had even psychiatrists demanding I process their wives after they had heard one lecture.

The demand for my own processing cut back my time and nearly stopped everything until I turned everyone over to the org and got on with my local public promotion.

I refused to process people myself and therein lies the secret of expansion. Only an org, with its organization and facilities and teamwork can handle PCs and students. Even a very small org doesn’t dare process PCs or train students. It does best when it only promotes. And it should send its PCs to a bigger org. It should limit itself as I did after orgs took my PCs over, to short assists, PE courses and small co-audits.

DISSEMINATION FORMULA

I’ve now discovered the Dissemination Formula we’ve wanted so long and it’s easy. Central orgs have it and train Field Staff Members on it in the staff training programme. Being tech it has no part of this Policy Letter. It takes four or five hours to learn, theory and practical. The org will have all such programmes of staff training.

PAYMENT OF COMMISSION

Accounts receives the selectee’s Selection Paper from the selectee when that person arrives at the Acccunts window. Accounts must write on the Invoice the auditor’s name who did the selection.

Accounts will at once (or within a week of registration) make out a cheque for 10% of the cash payment made to the Field Staff Member and mail it to him or her.

When the commission is paid, Accounts sends an invoice copy of the payment and of the PC or student’s training, processing or membership payment to the Dept of Clearing. The department staples these to the Field Staff Member’s copy and files it under the Field Staff Member’s name.

The commission is only given on the actual amount the selectee paid. In intensives this should be for at least one intensive. However if at that appegrance the selectee bought several grades worth of intensives or several courses, the commission is also given for those.

TIME

There is no time stipulation as to how often selectees may be selected and the org has no period of grace wherein a person may only be selected by the org itself. If an org procures a PC or student however, directly, the org, not one of its general staff members, gets the commission.

PROFESSIONAL RATES

Commission is also paid on professional rates but not to the auditor himself or a “friend” who will refund the commission. The professional rate applies only to auditing. There is no professional rate for training or courses.

DISPUTES
Where one Field Staff Member claims he or she sent in a PC or student and another also claims it, the Director of Clearing should be appealed to to settle the dispute.

The org always pays on the selection paper handed in by the selectee, not on the earliest contact.

At least one of the claims must be paid. Two commissions may not be paid on the same matter to settle a dispute.

A Field Staff Member who feels an error has been made can write the Director of Inspections and Reports in his nearest Org who will handle it.

DISPUTES BETWEEN FIELD STAFF MEMBERS

In any disputes between two Field Staff Members, either may appeal to the Chaplain’s Court, Department of Success, in their nearest org, which may “hear” the matter by mail and render a decision. Such an action does not make any Scientologist liable to further action.

FORMING ORGS

As official orgs are now on the lookout to form orgs, and as distant service is not as easy as close service, the HCO Area Sec should be approached concerning the formation of a new local org. Such an org would be owned and operated by Scientology from Saint Hill. The HCO Area Sec will base decision upon the amount of traffic coming from that area and the successfulness of the Field Staff Members there. Final permission for a new Org must come from Saint Hill. The new org will be only a Class Zero org at first with very limited services but all orgs grow. Such an org must be formed and conducted like any other official org. It is prohibited for an old org to finance a new org in any way.

The new org pays a percentage of its gross to the founding official org. And the new org pays 10% commissions as above to the Field Staff Members on its staff but only if it is fully official and only when authorized to have an HGC. Until it has an official HGC it continues to operate on commissions and pays no percentage to the forming org, but still receives them. Its PE and Co-audit activities and commissions paid, in students and PCs sent into the founding org, support it.
 
HGCs AND ACADEMIES

Hubbard Guidance Centres of official orgs only may be sent PCs and Academies of Scientology only may be sent students by Field Staff Members as long and arduous experience has determined that great quantities of trouble can come from courses and clinics which are unofficial and usually offical orgs have to clean the resulting mess up. Notable examples were Sydney, and the US Pacific North West in ‘54. There have been dozens of such instances with many people hurt. The names Hubbard Guidance Centres and Academies of Scientology are protected by law. Only their service is supervised by Saint Hill or myself.

FIELD STAFF MEMBER REGULATION

A Field Staff Member comes under the same discipline as any other org staff member and is subject to the same codes of ethics. Auditing org PCs or students is forbidden to all staff members.

ACCEPTANCE

The field auditor should write his or her nearest official Organization addressing his letter to the Director of Clearing, who would be his superior in an org, giving his acceptance of appointment or declining it. In return he will receive his credentials as a Field Staff Member (Provisional) which consist a letter signed by the HCO Secretary signifying his or her appointment, to be followed after a year by more formal credentials. In writing the Director of Clearing head the letter “Re Field Staff Member Appointment” and give current address and any other particulars. If there are any questions or hitch, write to me at Saint Hill.

PROVISIONAL

The first appointment is PROVISIONAL - meaning “not permanent”. At the end of one year, the appointment expires unless renewed. On being confirmed at the end of one year, the “Provisional” is removed and more extensive credentials are issued.

When a Field Staff Member (Provisional) has been one for ten months, he or she should write the Director of Field Activities requesting the full appointment be made and giving any evidence of good work. At that time the Director of Clearing will cause to be issued a new set of credentials to the Field Staff Member, declaring him or her to be a Field Staff Member. Activity is the criteria of issuing full credentials. If any difficulty develops in obtaining full credentials, contact me at Saint Hill.

The names or short lists sent to the Field Staff Member for selection or collection are considered to be org prospects. The Field Staff Member may only select them to the org or collect from them for the org, and if the Field Staff Member processes or trains for his own fee prospect names sent by the org he is subject to discipline by the Distribution Secretary.

PRIVATE PRACTICE

Any field auditor with a private practice who wishes to retain it should advise his Organization or Association Secretary of the nearest official org and explain why.

CENTRES

Any Centres wishing to become Class Zero orgs should advise the HCO Area Sec of their nearest org. They are accepted when authorized by the Office of LRH and when the earlier mentioned conditions for a new org are met. Meanwhile they operate in relation to their nearest org as a group of Field Staff Members if they accept appointment as Field Staff Members.

FRANCHISE HOLDERS

Existing Franchise Holders may retain their franchise and status so long as they remain in good standing at Saint Elill.

NEW COURSES AND PROCESSING

Field Staff Members HCA and above may have the professional rate now for HGC intensives if International Members in good standing.

Courses for Field Staff Members are given at the same fees as for any other International Member or Staff Member. There is no professional rate for courses, only for intensives. They are however given short briefings on pertinent subjects at such times as the secretary of their org makes it available. However, the better trained a Field Staff Member is, the better he will succeed and therefore this appointment should not interrupt training plans.
DEBTS

Field Staff Members may be requested by the Department of Accounts to collect overdue accounts on which 10a, commission of any sums collected will be paid by the org. But they may not be ordered to do this.

Accounts may release to Field Staff Members in an area lists of overdue accounts in that area. By using ARC Break technology and assists the Field Staff Member may collect the sums in cheque form only payable to the org and forward it with any details to Accounts in the org. Accounts must inform Inspections and Reports of any such issue of lists or any collections received by this method. All such assists are given at the Field Staff Member’s own discretion without org reimbursement.

GENERAL AND EXECUTIVE STAFF MEMBER SELECTIONS

The general staff member of any org may select students or PCs or memberships applicants by issuing them Selection Papers to their own orgs. In this case any commission is paid to the staff member’s own org and the Selection Paper is of a different appearance. The general or Executive staff member receives any benefit through org pay along with the rest of staff.

SAINT HILL FIELD STAFF MEMBERS

Any auditor trained to any level at Saint Hill is similarly appointed by this Policy Letter. All “Saint Hillers” are therefore appointed FIELD STAFF MEMBERS SAINT HILL. When working as a general staff member or executive for an org, the 10af is paid to that org, not the staff member personally so that all its staff may benefit. They may select to the Saint Hill Course or HGC.

The same stipulations and procedures as for other orgs (as above in this Policy Letter) apply to Saint Hill Field Staff Members.

Commissions are paid on the Saint Hill Briefing Course and Saint Hill HGC if the student or PC sent is sent expressly to Saint Hill as above.

Acceptance of appointment from Saint Hill does not prohibit being as well a Field Staff Member of a local org.

SENIOR ORG PRFFERENCE

A Field Staff Member trained and certified at a senior org may be a Field Staff Member of that org even while employed on staff by a junior org but the commission is paid to the junior org. The junior org is paid the commission on any PC or student he sends to the senior org (not his own). Memberships alone are denied commission in such a case as the junior org can also sell them.

Such a Field Staff Member for a senior org employed in a junior org must not distract students or PCs already selected by a Field Staff Member of the junior org before they can present selection papers.

BEING ON TWO STAFFS

Any field auditor can be a Field Staff Member to more than one org but is actually on the staff of the nearest org to his address and may not use another appointment to another org or Saint Hill to set aside the nearer org’s requirements of him or her. In changing location the Field Staff Member must inform the Director of Clearing of the Org he has been nearest to and inform the Director of Clearing of the Org he will now be nearest to. In case he is a Field Staff Member Saint Hill also he should inform the Director of Clearing Saint Hill.

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

LRH:jw:jp:rd:jk 
Copyright © 1965, 1968, 1979 
by L. Ron llubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Mi nor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 JANUARY 1965

Remimeo
Franchise
Franchise:
WHO MAY HAVE IT AND HOW TO MAINTAIN IT, AD 15

The Franchise Programme has been a part of the broad, public dissemination of Scientology for a long time now, almost six years.

The purpose of this programme is to build up a really fine group of professional auditors practicing and disseminating Scientology in the field, professional auditors who could help carry out the goals, aims, and ideals of Scientology and who could in the practical aspects of training, processing, and like activities, help other people to higher levels of awareness and beingness.

To accomplish this purpose we had to ensure to the Franchise Holder and to the general public that they would get the very best data and technical information with which to succeed, the dissemination and help of Scientology relying wholly on technical working in the hands of those who apply it, not just those who are closely supervised in it’s application, but in everyone’s hands.

So we had to provide the service of seeing that this technical information was relayed as fast as possible each week on established communication lines; that there was someone to answer and handle the natural queries that result from new technical information; that the general public be advised throughout our various magazines that these Franchise Holders were the elite corps from whom the best technical could be expected in the field; and that we could do everything possible to promote the activities of the Franchise Holder through advertising, technical information, and administrative advice.

In return for such information and services, we ask that ten percent of the weekly gross income of the Franchise Holder be seXt, along with a weekly report, to help defray the expenses involved, to help pay for the advertising arld to help pay for the research involved in the development of new technology.

Thus a two-way flow is maintained with affinity, reality, and communication.

New promotion and a new technical bridge have been originated to increase even further the effectiveness and reach of our Franchise Holders. This new promotion and new bridge, via the training and processing levels, will bring about more success and more wins and more people.

To cope with this forward reach and progress, we would like to ensure that those who are now Franchise Holders will continue to be Franchise Holders in the future and to ensure that the members of Franchise Holders are increased.

First, let’s review the definition of a Franchise Holder: A professional auditor, with a classification to Level III or over, who practices Scientology full or part time for remuneration, who conducts processing and training privately or to groups, whose understanding and experience of Scientology is sufficiently broad for him to be publicized to others as a stable terminal, who has signed a Franchise Agreement, who receives Bulletins, Policy Letters, advice, advertising, technical information, services and administrative data from HCO WW, and who, in return for same, maintains regularly a weekly report and a weekly payment of ten percent of his gross income to HCO WW.

Contained in this definition are all the agreements which create the reality of the communication flows and which help to maintain affinity in common purpose and understanding.

The administrative actions which we engage upon to maintain the Franchise programme are much more complicated and time consuming than the fifteen or thirty minutes (and even less, in the case of some very efficient Franchise Holders) required to write out a supplied report form and check (cheque), but this difference is made up in the hours and time devoted to handling, processing, and training people by the Franchise Holder.

We would like to see in the future more Franchise Holders, and Franchise Holders so busy and successful that they need to hire someone to file their report to HCO WW, to enroll all the people, to answer the telephone, and to keep that over-full appointment book.

The future of the Franchise Programme is bright. Let’s keep it that way by maintaining the agreements upon which it is founded and by gathering together new members with the same aims and goals.

L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 31 JANUARY 1969
Remimeo 
Gung Ho
Groups 
Div 6
HUMANITARIAN OBJECTIVE AND GUNG HO GROUPS

It is pretty hard to handle a downstat (one with low, declining statistics). It is easy to handle an upstat.

In a world which is taught by the old school that it is a dog-eat-dog, jungle world, one has incompetent governments, wars, pressure groups, conflicts, economic pushes and generally a hard environment in which to operate.

The Humanitarian Objective of Scientology is—TO MAKE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE 4th DYNAMIC ENGRAM CAN BE AUDITED.

A suppressed and insecure society is a hard one in which to operate.

The answer then is to generally increase the security of races, groups, individuals.

A true democracy is possible only when the group is made up of sane, thinking individuals. We can produce these and out from them goes a zone of greater security. However, it is perilous to neglect the further out surroundings and it is necessary that one give some thought to other dynamics beyond the first dynamic (self).

We are not engaged in a conquest or to achieve some planned Utopia. All we are trying to do is lessen the turbulence and insecurity in the society, which is the basic role of a church.

By organization and an orderly approach to the problem, we can achieve this in several ways, a main one being Gung Ho Group activities.

1. 	Gung Ho Group asks individuals in the society what should be done.

2.	Gung Ho Group publishes the results.

3.	Gung Ho Group contacts Humanitarian group to see what each can do to forward (2). 

4. 	Society revitalizes.

5. 	Auditing occurs on a wider perimeter.

6. 	Gung Ho Group repeats all above.

Now, if the Gung Ho Group works only with social questions and gets individual public citizens to state what should really happen or be done on it, and if getting it done is achieved by liaison with existing groups, and if pressure groups such as political lobbies are ignored if they won’t cooperate and other type groups are coordinated, then things will start going right.

Vitality returns to a society when common purposes are restimulated.

At present so many special group interests are so in conflict with other special groups that social progress is impeded.
If you can get one commonly expressed purpose these actually done by liaison with interested social or humanitarian groups the knot starts to untangle.

The combined strength of many social groups using all their connections to achieve one gain cannot help but produce it.

Instead of all the force vectors lying about in a random confusion, opposing each other, you add up some of the vectors all in one direction and achieve thereby a concentration which brings a result.

Even a small local campaign so coordinated will work.

It won’t work if you go to groups for the purpose and ignore the men in the street. Groups get individuated. Each group is to some degree attacked or opposed and each is trying to do something. This brings about a stagnation of action. You also get a disinterested, often disloyal society. You get dope addiction, immorality, bad indicators in general.

A real society is one in whicll the majority are going in some direction toward a desirable goal. But it has to be tlteir goal. This rekindles interest, action and hope. It revitalizes society.

Also we begin to stand for something they all stand for.

If as we progress a lot of people also get processed, then there’s also the effect of their beneficial influence added to it.

Example: We poll an area or a country regarding desirable social targets with “What should be done to improve human rights?” We get a lot of answers. We boil these down to an honest common denominator. We find whatever we find. Maybe it’s “Parking tickets should be given to the person, not left on cars”. So we liaison with any and all civic groups and put this up to them. What can each one do about it. We keep it rolling. Suddenly the practice is effected. People wake up to the fact that something can be done about something. So we do it all over again, using perhaps the same original question to individuals.

Now that example is developed from a preconceived question.

You can do it with a much more general approach.

“What should be done in this city to better it.”

The choice of the question of course to some degree regulates the campaign. The improvement of human rights will be found to be very generally acceptable.

If you choose a question which then runs too contrary to the forces of law and order, even more confusion will result. So one tries to get a theta approach to things.

People are usually able to agree with getting something stopped. This is not always bad. Sometimes that’s all you can get them to agree with.

Today we have government by special interest. It ignores to a huge degree what the average citizen really wants. This winds up usually in some weird special interest Utopia mess like the book George Orwell’s “1984”. The number of Utopia planners around would amaze you. The average individual shuns Utopias like the plague. One has to go to the individual member and go to many individuals in many strata of society to find out what’s really wanted. It’s usually pretty simple.

The way the question is worded should guide toward a simple action, not some long term complex action.

A lot of actually done, easy actions each one completed will straighten out a lot of vectors.

The HCO Pol Ltrs on Targets can help. The one purpose selected via individuals becomes a Major Target for the programme.

Our overall Major Target is of course our Humanitarian Objective, with Scn Orgs and Gung Ho groups as Primary Targets and keeping Scn going as a Vital Target and Revitalizing society as the Operating Target.

Each programme developed by polling individuals has the majority goal as its Major Target.

We are weary of rule by Special Interests. It’s about time we helped make a society of which every one can be proud and where they all win.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH: ldm.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS C7FFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 JULY 1969
Issue II
Remimeo
Public Divs	DIANETIC COUNSELING GROUPS 2
Dianctic
Counseling Groups
Purpose

For an organized activity to persist and expand it must have a wor.hwhile purpose to which its members and activities are aligned

The purpose of a DIANETIC COUNSELING GROUP is:

TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT OF WELL HAPPY HUMAN BEINGS WHO BEING FREED FROM BODILY CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM OF THE BODY CAN NOW ACHIEVE THE SCIENTOLOGY RESULTS OF A FREE, POWERFUL AND IMMORTAL BEING.

To this purpose there is no hidden, secret intention, it is purely and simply as stated.

It is envisioned that with the expansion of the group and others like it, sanity and calm will spread into the society around as people become aware of the fact that someone really can help them and as they themselves become well, their attention freed from being fixed on their body.

A well society is a sane society.

A being who is stuck with pain and suffering, much of which is so suppressed he is hardly aware of it, cannot be at ease with his fellows and cannot eas;ly achieve the spiritual freedom that he seeks.

The purpose of the group is to ease this and make well happy human beings, who) freed from bodily considerations and the present time problem of the body can move on up to the spiritual freedom achievable through Scientology.

You will probably be the first Dianetic Counseling Group in your area and as such you have the responsibility for the whole area. This is not something to be afraid of, but a challenge to rise to. Never before has anyone had the precise rapid power to relieve the suffering of mankind that you have.

The Pastoral Counseling procedures you will be using are unique in their precisiop and results.

To date, people have been subjected, in the name of “mental healing” to brutalities even torture and murder. “Mental Healing”, apart from Dianetics, has not been developed in recent centuries as a science or study to relieve man, but rather has been aborted to use as a means of political control, Treatments such as electric shock have killed or permanently crippled millions through the violence of the convulsions it creates. Pre-frontal lobotomy makes man into a vegetable. It is true it calms him down, but he can never become well again, if he even survives the operation. Drugs can kill through the severity of their effects on the human body.

“Mental healing” has become almost totally associated with brutality and control and is used for the most sordid purposes.

Your purpose is pure, you are unique.
You will do well to place a sign, in a place that it is clearly visible, stating:

“THIS GROUP EXISTS TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT OF WELL HAPPY HUMAN BEINGS WHO BEING FREED FROM BODILY CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM OF THE BODY CAN NOW ACHIEVE THE SCIENTOLOGY RESULTS OF A FREE, POWERFUL AND IMMORTAL BEING.”

Also place another sign not quite as bold:

“This group will not recommend or condone pqlitical nental treatment such as electric shocks or brain operations or convulsive drugs and condemns utterly this Fascist approach to ‘mental health’ by extermination of the insane. Because we will not agree to brutality and murder under the guise of mental healing or to the easy and lawless seizure of persons ;n the name of ‘mental health’ for political reasons, our associate organizations are fought ceaselessly by those who seek domination of this country through ‘mental treatment’. You are safe so long as we live.”

Place these well so that visitors know exactly what you stand for.

The whole of your activity will be aligned to this purpose and you will progress to the degree that as a group you agree with and follow it. This is what Dianetics is for.

Your power in the society will be judged by your ability to make good this purpose .

The technology of Dianetics is refined to the point that applied exactly, as your auditors are taught~ and hacked up by Scientology review, you cannot fail, you will succeed 100S.

Your purpose takes you right into the public, you will be contacting many people.

The product that your group will deliver is one that has been searched for since time immemorial, it is your task to deliver that product exactly and flawlessly.

Within the society there is no other group which has the technology to do what your group will be engaged in. You will be in competition with no one.

In applying Standard Dianetics you will work in co-operation with Medical Doctors, and in some cases they are essential. It is important that a working understanding be established between the Dianetic Counseling Group and a local medical doctor or clinic. This is covered fully in a later paper.

The position of the group is to be operating harmoniously within the society, providing a product which is needed and wanted by that society, and where necessary in liaison with a doctor or clinic.

Backed up by the local Hubbard Scientology Organization the group will play a valuable role.

W/O Ken Delderfield 
CS-6 
and 
Flag Public Officer 

LRH:KD:RW:ei.cden 	for
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	L. RON HUBBARD 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	Founder

SEA ORGANIZATION

FLAG ORDER 137
The Sea Organization

If almost any person in the Sea Organization were to appear in a Scientology group or Org he would be lionized, red-carpeted and Very-Important-Personed beyond bellef.

For the Sea Organlzatlon is composed of the “aristocracy” of Scientology.

These peoplew alone and on their own are all stars in the sky in their areas.

It is like one of the old regiments of gentlemen where a private would bew in another but common regiment, a colonel.

Denying the skill and fame of these individuals to Scientology at large would seem at first glance an extravagance and very wasteful.

And it would be except for one or two things.

In 1966 Iimade the actual test of what I could accomplish alone (much as an OT) in the wog world. I won the affection of the people of an entire small country and changed it. But a small determined clique of our SP friends made sure I lost. True, as they are locally and internationally unpopularw that they made me go opens all doors to us there when they are overthrown, as they will be, merely on the rationale that if they opposed us then we are all right.

But this adventure showed several things to be true. An unsupported OT without OT organizations around him can lose ground. Cost to mef to do thiss in terms of cashs was greater in less than five months than the whole Sea Organization in nearly a year. Even in full success, without organizationw I would have done less good than a similar period with organization. There was no personal case gain in it.

I am a great one for pioneering alone to find “holes in the fence”. Wells that’s what I did in 1966. And I concluded several things. First was that on an international basis one has to get in Ethics before he gets in Tech. Second was that OTs did better amongst OTs. Third that OTs were most valuable as a disciplined organized group. Fourth, that one could not, with such power, hold a fixed position without losing ground. Fifth, that we grow stronger as we continue to remain “Fabian”. Sixth, that the Sea Org is the best area on which to be Fabian on this planet. Seventht that we had to learn to work together as OTs before we could take in further territory. Eigth, that we could do our jobs best if we all grew more accustomed to handling Mest. Ninth, that the Sea Organization as it is developing is our best personal and international answer.

Sot the Sea Organization is composed of people who alone would excite great admiration but who together, well organized, can actually get the job done.

And although our lowest deck hand could be a “duke” only all of us together could get on with the job.

And that’s how and why (with allowances for security in the crypticness of this text) the Sea Organization came into being and why we are here.

L. RON HUBBARD 
COMMODORE
LRH:dr

Boots in the Sky
By L. Ron Hubbard

What is the essential difference between what I’m doing in Scientology and other people? Is it because I’m brighter? No. Is it because I know more? No. There’s really only one thing: I recognize that it’s my job. I also recognize anyhody has this job.

There was this great big pair of boots and they were sitting right in the middle of this universe. They were awfully big boots. You could get down amongst them with telescopes. You could look the length and breadth of them and find absolutely nothing inhabiting them.

In these boots, it just simply said, “These are the boots which go down a road which leads out of this joint.”

Other people (when they ever did see them) had been driving spaceships through them and playing hopscotch in them and so on. These boots were sitting right there.

They sat on the doorstep of every door that has ever been covered with crepe. They sat on the doorstep of every bank that ever renegged on a pledged agreement or refused a loan to somebody who was desperate. They sat on the doorstep of every church which, itself, was pretending to take vast responsibility. They fell across every single boulevard and progress that Man ever thought he could make. He could go ahead and take responsibility for destroying culture, but not for helping a single inpividual in it. Fascinating!

You look at those boots -- they weren’t even big boots. They were little boots, little kids’ boots. There wasn’t anything to them. And what’d you do? You just threw some space out that big, that’s all. You narrowed the space down to the universe of one man and you found out he was a highly representative man, and then you took a look. The boots were very wearable.

They’re very simple boots. But what do you know! These boots have a catch to them. They aren’t just one man’s boots. They were every man’s boots. And because I assayed to take a few steps in them and square them around and find out where the road was and what leather they were made out of, didn’t absolve a single individual who cared to benefit from those boots from wearing them. And that is the grimmest joke ol all.

A person has to come up the scale so that he can take responsibility for himself and all of his fellows and the whole cockeyed, condemned universe before he can walk down that road out. Isn’t that fascinating?

He can’t even run his engram bank unless he says, “It’s my business and I mean to make it so.” Isn’t that interesting? If on the other hand, he’s down the tone scale, he “knows” all knowledge is inhibited, he “knows” all things are inhibited, he “knows” everything is scarce. he “knows” death is inevitable, he “knows” all these things. He “knows” he has no space. He “knows” that life is an object, not an animate, glorious thing. And as long as he “knows” that, then he will know no more. Actually, at that level, one knows practically nothing.

The bank will sit there and some of the little incidents in it might be quite bright and it might be interesting. But boy! Is it of narrow scope! It’ll be a little tiny bank.

Those real big ridges standing out there have to he handled by a big guy if you re going to handle them all the way. Now we have the modus operandi of how you get to be a big guy. There isn’t any gimmick factor whereby you all of a sudden discover you have to make up your mind to be self determined.

You could take a preclear by the nape of his neck and hold him up there and bang his head against the wall with our techniques and get a result. If you start him on that line you’d never have to explain a thing to him. He’d finally wind up somewhere. But he’d never walk out of this universe with your help.

He’ll only walk out of this nniverse if you permit him to recover enough force so that he can have responsibility for what’s going on.

There isn’t any hidden gimmick: there isn’t anything else he has to think: there isn’t anything he has to believe in. really to amount to anything to go this way. You could boot him up this line quite artificially but what you’re really doing is taking him and putting these boots on him. He has to he fitted with these boots and these boots are called Responsibility: the ability to handle force and take the responsibility for the use of it the ability to create and handle space of any dimension and take the responsibility for handling it. He’s got to be able to take responsibility for all enforcement and all desire way up the line, and all space before he’ll walk any place.

Unfortunately, for your sakes, this isn’t fiction. I wish it were. If it were just a pleasant afternoon we could all go on being slaves.

But unfortunately it doesn’t happen to be fiction. As the Chair of Physics in one university said “The diabolic accuracy of these predictions will be borne out by the most exacting research and investigation.” Our techniques are diabolical because they take slaves away from those who would have slaves. They set men free. They’ll even set men free who don’t want to be free at all. I think that is the grimmest jest.

When it comes to any of these techniques they all add up to something I’ve talked to you about before time and time again - Freedom.

Freedom is lots of space and the ability to use it. That’s all freedom is. It’s exactly what it says it is. It is the most idiotically literal thing imaginable.

Freedom: lots of space and thc ability to use it.

Complete freedom is above the level of not even needing space. And not even having to agree. That is above the level of freedom. That is Cause itself. You never saw Cause itself ever being worried.

Prime Cause has nothing which could enslave it except itself. Just like there’s really nobody ever going to really pick up this preclear and carry him out of this universe. Nohody’s ever going to do that. He can have his boots put on but he’ll still have that last mile he has to walk himself.

That means that he’ll have to take responsibility for what he does and his force not only for that but everything that goes on around him.

We find out that there is a bigness which has to grow in the person. And if you don’t see that bigness growing he’s not on his way out.

The difference between the preclear that has to be chained down to have the boots put on him and me is I never wanted to be a slave and I never had to be. That’s all. I never agreed.