No matching fragments found in this document.
The
Technical Bulletins
of
Dianetics and Scientology
by
L. Ron Hubbard
FOUNDER OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY
Volume
V
1962-1964
_____________________________________________________________________
I will not always be here on guard.
The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
And the wind sighs for songs
Across the empty fields of a planet
A Galaxy away.
You won't always be here.
But before you go,
Whisper this to your sons
And their sons -
"The work was free.
Keep it so. "
L. RON HUBBARD
[pic]
L. Ron Hubbard
Founder of Dianetics and Scientology
EDITORS' NOTE
"A chronological study of materials is necessary for the complete
training of a truly top grade expert in these lines. He can see how the
subject progressed and so is able to see which are the highest levels of
development. Not the least advantage in this is the defining of words and
terms for each, when originally used, was defined, in most cases, with
considerable exactitude, and one is not left with any misunderstoods."
-L. Ron Hubbard
The first eight volumes of the Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and
Scientology contain, exclusively, issues written by L. Ron Hubbard, thus
providing a chronological time track of the development of Dianetics and
Scientology. Volume IX, The Auditing Series, and Volume X, The Case
Supervisor Series, contain Board Technical Bulletins that are part of the
series. They are LRH data even though compiled or written by another.
So that the time track of the subject may be studied in its entirety,
all HCO Bs have been included, excluding only those upper level materials
which will be found on courses to which they apply. If an issue has been
revised, replaced, or cancelled, this has been indicated in the upper right-
hand corner along with the page number of the issue which should be
referred to.
The points at which Ron gave tape recorded lectures have been indicated
as they occurred. Where they were given as part of an event or course,
information is given on that event or course on the page in the
chronological volumes which corresponds to the date. The symbol "**"
preceding a tape title means that copies are available from both
Publications Organizations. A tape preceded by "*" means that it will soon
be available. No asterisk (*) means that neither Publications Organization
nor Flag has a master copy of that lecture. If you have, or know anyone who
has, copies of these tapes, please contact the Flag Audio Chief, P.O. Box
23751, Tampa, Florida, 33623, U.S.A. The number in the tape title is a code
for the date; example: 5505C07-55 = year, 1955; 05 = month, May; C = copy;
07 = day, 7th; 7 May 1955. The abbreviation tells what group the tape is a
part of. For an explanation of the abbreviations see Volume X, page 539.
At the back of this volume is a Subject Index covering only the
material in this volume. Use the index to locate the LRH source material in
context, don't just get data from the index. This index has been combined
with indexes from other volumes to form the Cumulative Index which is in
Volume X, starting on page 287.
TECHNICAL BULLETINS
1962-1964
CONTENTS
1962
6 Jan. Laudatory Withholds (HCO PL)
9 Jan. 3D Criss Cross (HCO Info. Ltr.) 4
11 Jan. Security Checking-Twenty-Ten Theory 6
17 Jan. Responsibility Again (HCO PL) (reissued 7 June 1967) 8
22 Jan. 3D Criss Cross-Method of Assessment (HCO Info. Ltr.)
10
22 Jan. Crash Programme (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4- 26
25 Jan. Flow Process 14
Feb. Flows, Basic 16
Feb. 3D Criss Cross-Assessment Tips (HCO Info. Ltr.) 17
3 Feb. 3DXX Flows Assessment (HCO Info. Ltr.) 19
8 Feb. Missed Withholds 20
12 Feb. How to Clear Withholds and Missed Withholds 23
13 Feb. 3D Criss Cross Items (HCO PL) 25
15 Feb. Co-Audit & Missed Withholds 25
22 Feb. Withholds, Missed and Partial 26
27 Feb. Clean Hands Clearance Check (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 5-358
1 Mar. Prepchecking 28
8 Mar. The Bad "Auditor" 32
15 Mar. Suppressors 36
21 Mar. Prepchecking Data-When to Do a What 39
29 Mar. CCHs Again-When to Use the CCHs 43
5 Apr. CCHs-Auditing Attitude 45
11 Apr. Determining What to Run 48
12 Apr. CCHs-Purpose 50
26 Apr. Recommended Processes HGC 51
29 Apr. Routine 3G (Experimental) (HCO Info. Ltr.) 53
3 May ARC Breaks-Missed Withholds 58
10 May Prepchecking and Sec Checking 62
10 May Routine 3GA (Experimental) (HCO Info. Ltr.) 64
14 May Case Repair 67
21 May Missed Withholds, Asking About 71
21 May Training-Classes of Auditors (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-315
22 May Model Session Change 72
23 May E-Meter Reads-Prepchecking-How Meters Get Invalidated
73
1962 (cont.)
24 May Training-Session Cancellation-Auditing Section
(HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-318
24 May Q and A 74
25 May E-Meter Instant Reads 77
26 May Training Drills Must Be Correct (HCO PL) 79
June Auditing-Rudiments Check Sheet (HCO PL) 81
8 June Rudiments Checking 82
11 June Prepchecking the Middle Rudiments 83
14 June Checking Needle in Rudiments Checks 84
23 June Model Session Revised (canceled-see 398) 85
24 June Prepchecking 88
25 June E-Meter Standards 91
27 June Rundown on Routine 3GA 92
28 June Dirty Needles-How to Smooth Out Needles 93
30 June ARC Process 95
ca. June How to Study Scientology (Ability 139) see footnote Vol.
III-426
2 July Repetitive Rudiments-How to Get the Rudiments In 96
3 July Repetitive Prepchecking 98
4 July Bulletin Changes 101
4 July Coachless Training-Use of a Doll 103
14 July Auditing Allowed (HCO PL) 104
15 July Goals Prepcheck Form-Routine 3GA (HCO PL) 106
17 July Routine 3GA-HCO WW R-3GA Form 1-Listing Prepcheck
(HCO PL) 109
19 July Clearing-Free Needles (HCO PL) 112
21 July Instant Reads 113
21 July Rudiments, Repetitive or Fast see footnote-113
22 July Routine 3GA-Listing Wording (HCO PL) 114
24 July R3GA-HCO WW Form G3-Fast Goals Check (HCO PL)
(revised-see 165) 115
30 July A Smooth HGC 25 Hour Intensive 116
Aug. Routine 3GA-Goals-Nulling by Mid Ruds 118
Aug. Routine 3GA-Nulling Drills for Nulling by Mid Ruds
(replaced-see 196) 122
2 Aug. CCH Answers 126
7 Aug. Running CCHs 127
10 Aug. How It Feels to Go Clear 128
13 Aug. Rock Slams and Dirty Needles 129
13 Aug. Clearing (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-553
21 Aug. 3GA-Line Wording 130
22 Aug. 3GA-Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam-Dynamic
Assessment Tip
(canceled-see footnote on 132) 131
1962 (cont.)
23 Aug. 3GA-Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam see footnote-132
30 Aug. Order of Prepcheck Buttons 133
31 Aug. 3GA-Expanded Line Wording 134
31 Aug. 3GA-Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam 135
Sept. 3GA-Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam 135
Sept. Clearing Success Congress Lectures (1 Sept.-3 Sept.)
136
2 Sept. Account of Congress Goal 137
3 Sept. 3GA-Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam 138
8 Sept. 3GA-To Be Goals Line Listing 139
12 Sept. Security Checks Again 140
12 Sept. Authorized Processes (HCO PL) 141
17 Sept. An Arrangement of the Academy (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-
327
19 Sept. 3GA-Tips on Dynamic Assessment-Rules of Thumb
142
23 Sept. A 40-Line List on a Doingness Goal 143
27 Sept. Valid Processes (HCO PL) 145
27 Sept. Problems Intensive Use 146
Oct. 3GA-Listing by Tiger Buttons-114 New Lines for Listing
147
2 Oct. When You Need Reassurance 149
3 Oct. Tiger Drilling 150
8 Oct. HGC Clearing (HCO PL) 152
13 Oct. Processes 156
15 Oct. Goal Finder's Model Session (canceled-see 243) 157
16 Oct. Routine 3GA-Listing 159
17 Oct. Auditor Failure to Understand 161
18 Oct. 3GA-Listing by Prehav 163
19 Oct. R3GA-HCO WW Form G3, Revised-Fast Goals Check (HCO PL)
165
29 Oct. Pre-Clearing Intensive 166
7 Nov. Wrong Goals, Importance of Repair of 167
7 Nov. Routine 3-21-The Twenty-One Steps-Finding Goals 170
7 Nov. "Roll Your Own" Prehav 173
8 Nov. Somatics-How to Tell Terminals and Opposition Terminals
175
11 Nov. 3GAXX-Straightening up 3GAXX Cases 179
12 Nov. 3GAXX-Dirty Needles and Incomplete Lists-How to Assess
180
17 Nov. Routine 3-21 182
23 Nov. Routine Two-Twelve-Opening Procedure by Rock Slam
-An HPA/HCA Skill 185
24 Nov. Routine 2-12-List One-Issue One-The Scientology List
191
28 Nov. R2-12-Practical Drills 193
29 Nov. Routine 2-12-List One-Issue Two-The Scientology List
195
29 Nov. Routines 2-12, 3-21 and 3GAXX-Tiger Drill for Nulling
by Mid Ruds 196
1962 (cont.)
Dec. Goals & Prepchecking (HCO PL) 201
Dec. V Unit-New Students-Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
(HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-421
2 Dec. Instructors' Stable Data (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-
161
4 Dec. Routine 2-12-List One-Issue Three-The Scientology List
202
5 Dec. 2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 and Routine 2-10-Modern Assessment
203
6 Dec. R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX-Data, The Zero A Steps and
Purpose of Processes 210
8 Dec. Training-Saint Hill Special Briefing Course-Summary of
Subjects by Units (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4 -423
8 Dec. Training-X Unit 214
8 Dec. Corrections-HCO Bulletin of December 5, AD12 see footnote-
209
9 Dec. Routine 2-12-List One-Add to List One Issue Three 215
15 Dec. R2-12-The Fatal Error 216
17 Dec. Correction to HCO Bulletin of December 5, 1962 see
footnote-209
30 Dec. Routines 2-12 & 2-10-Case Errors-Points of Greatest
Importance 217
1963
Jan. Academy Curriculum-How to Teach Auditing and Routine
2 227
3 Jan. Routine 2-Opposition Lists-Right and Wrong Oppose 230
15 Jan. Routine 2-12 (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-563
27 Jan. Routine 2-Simplified 233
8 Feb. Curriculum Change (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-424
11 Feb. Current Auditing 239
12 Feb. Routines 2-12, 3-21 and 3GAXX-Tiger Drill for Nulling
by Mid Ruds (Franchise reissue) 196
13 Feb. V Unit (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-427
13 Feb. Academy Taught Processes (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-339
15 Feb. R2-R3-Listing Rules 241
20 Feb. Routine 2 & 3 Model Session (canceled-see 278) 243
21 Feb. Goals Check (HCO PL) 246
4 Mar. Routine 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A 247
8 Mar. Use of the Big Middle Rudiments 248
10 Mar. Routine 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A-Vanished RS or RR 249
14 Mar. Routine 2-Routine 3-ARC Breaks, Handling of 251
18 Mar. R2-R3-Important Data-Don't Force the Pc 255
23 Mar. Classification of Auditors-Class II & Goals (HCO PL)
OEC Vol. 4-340
23 Mar. Clear & OT 260
13 Apr. Routine 2-G-Original Routine 2, 3GA, 2-10, 2-12, 2-1 2A
and
Others Specially Adapted-Goals Finding-Designation of
Routines 262
25 Apr. Meter Reading TRs 264
1963 (cont.)
29 Apr. Modernized Training Drills Using Permissive Coaching
(canceled-see Vol. VII, 8) 266
15 May The Time Track and Engram Running by Chains-Bulletin 1
273
21 May Routine 3-R-3 Model Session (canceled-see 381) 278
27 May Cause of ARC Breaks 281
8 June The Time Track and Engram Running by Chains-Bulletin
2
-Handling the Time Track 287
10 June Scientology Training-Technical Studies (HCO PL) OEC
Vol. 4-342
24 June Routine 3-Engram Running by Chains-Bulletin 3
-Routine 3-R-Engram Running by Chains 292
25 June Routine 2H-ARC Breaks by Assessment 297
1 July Routine 3R-Bulletin 4-Preliminary Step 299
5 July ARC Break Assessments 306
5 July CCHs Rewritten (replaced-see Vol. VI, 118) 310
9 July A Technical Summary-The Required Skills of
Processing and Why 314
11 July Auditing Rundown-Missed Withholds-To Be Run in XI Unit
318
21 July Co-Audit ARC Break Process 319
22 July You Can Be Right 321
22 July Org Technical-HGC Processes and Training 324
23 July Auditing Rundown-Missed Withholds-To Be Run in XI Unit
328
25 July Diagrams for LRH Lecture to the SHSBC on 25 July 1963
see-339
28 July Time and the Tone Arm 329
29 July Scientology Review 332
30 July Current Planning (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-344
2 Aug. Public Project One (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 2- 93
4 Aug. E-Meter Errors-Communication Cycle Error 334
7 Aug. Diagrams for LRH Lecture to the SHSBC on 7 Aug. 1963
see-339
8 Aug. Diagrams for LRH Lecture to the SHSBC on 8 Aug. 1963
see-339
9 Aug. Definition of Release 338
11 Aug. ARC Break Assessments 338
14 Aug. Lecture Graphs 339
19 Aug. How to Do an ARC Break Assessment 345
20 Aug. R3R-R3N-The Preclear's Postulates 349
21 Aug. Change of Organization Targets-Project 80 (HCO PL) OEC
Vol. 2- 95
22 Aug. Project 80-The Itsa Line and Tone Arm 351
Sept. Routine Three SC 353
6 Sept. Instructing in Scientology Auditing-Instructor's
Task
-D of P's Case Handling 357
9 Sept. Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking
361
22 Sept. Prepcheck Buttons(canceled-see 446) 363
23 Sept. Tape Coverage of New Technology 365
1963 (cont.)
25 Sept. Adequate Tone Arm Action 367
Oct. Assists in Scientology (Ability 154) see footnote Vol.
III-264
1 Oct. How to Get Tone Arm Action 369
2 Oct. GPMs-Experimental Process Withdrawn 376
8 Oct. How to Get TA-Analysing Auditing 377
16 Oct. R3SC Slow Assessment 379
19 Nov. Routine 3-R-3 Model Session Revised (canceled-see 420) 381
25 Nov. Dirty Needles 384
26 Nov. Certificate and Classification Changes-Everyone Classified
(HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-360
26 Nov. A New Triangle-Basic Auditing, Technique, Case Analysis
385
14 Dec. Case Analysis-Health Research 388
28 Dec. Indicators-Part One: Good Indicators 390
30 Dec. Saint Hill Staff Course Lectures (30 Dec.-1 June 1964)
393
1964
21 Jan. Meter Level Warning-How to Kill a Pc in Level 5 394
24 Jan. Case Supervisor (HCO PL-excerpt) 395
Mar. Meter Reads, Size of 396
4 Mar. Class II Model Session (canceled-see 428) 398
15 Mar. Overwhelming the Pc 400
15 Mar. Meter-Everything Reading 402
18 Mar. HGC Allowed Processes (HCO PL) 406
2 Apr. Two Types of People (HCO Info. Ltr.) 407
7 Apr. Q and A 410
10 Apr. Auditing Skills 411
13 Apr. Tone Arm Action 413
20 Apr. Model Session-Levels III to VI (canceled-see 448) 420
23 Apr. Auditing by Lists (replaced-see Vol. VII, 316) 423
May The Workability of Scientology (The Auditor 1) 425
5 May Summary of Classification and Gradation and Certification
(HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4-373
19 May Class II Model Session (canceled-see Vol. VI, 44) 428
27 May Auditing Assignments 431
29 June Central Org and Field Auditor Targets 432
30 June Field Auditor Targets see footnote-435
7 July Justifications 436
8 July More Justifications 437
10 July Overts-Order of Effectiveness in Processing 438
12 July More on O/Ws 441
1964 (cont.)
24 July TA Counters, Use of 443
29 July Good Indicators at Lower Levels 445
14 Aug. Prepcheck Buttons 446
14 Aug. Model Session-Levels III to VI (canceled-see Vol. VI, 60)
448
17 Aug. Clay Table Work in Training and Processing 451
18 Aug. Clay Table Work Covering Clay Table Clearing in Detail
456
23 Aug. HQS Course 461
24 Aug. Session Must-Nots 463
7 Sept. Clay Table Levels 466
7 Sept. PTPs, Overts and ARC Breaks 468
8 Sept. Overts, What Lies Behind Them? 471
9 Sept. Clay Table Healing 472
9 Sept. Clay Table Clearing 475
12 Sept. Clay Table, More Goofs 476
24 Sept. Instruction & Examination: Raising the Standard of
(HCO PL) 478
27 Sept. Clay Table Clearing 483
28 Sept. Clay Table Use (HCO PL) 487
4 Oct. Theory Check-out Data (HCO PL) (reissued 21 May 1967)
488
17 Oct. Clay Table Data 490
17 Oct. Getting the Pc Sessionable 491
17 Oct. Clearing-Why It Works-How It Is Necessary 493
27 Oct. Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Potential
Trouble Sources (HCO PL) (reissued 23 June 1967) OEC
Vol. 1-517
Nov. The Book of Case Remedies 495
Nov. More Clay Table Clearing Goofs 496
6 Nov. Styles of Auditing 498
12 Nov. Definition Processes 505
16 Nov. Clay Table Label Goofs 509
10 Dec. Listen Style Auditing 511
11 Dec. Curriculum for Level 0-HAS 514
11 Dec. Scientology 0-Processes 516
26 Dec. Routine 0-A (Expanded) 520
Subject Index 522
Alphabetical List of Titles 552
LONG CONTENTS
HCO PL 6 Jan. 1962 LAUDATORY WITHHOLDS,
Know to Mystery Processing Check,
HCO Info. Ltr. 9 Jan. 1962 3D CRISS CROSS, 4
3D Criss Cross steps, 4
HCO B 11 Jan. 1962 SECURITY CHECKING-TWENTY-TEN THEORY, 6
Withholds cut havingness down, 6
Requisites for Twenty-Ten, 6
Twenty-Ten procedure, 6
Application of Twenty-Ten procedure to Goals Problem Mass, 7
HCOPL 17 Jan. 1962 RESPONSIBILITY AGAIN, 8
Common denominator of the Goals Problem Mass is "no responsibility",
8
Responsibility as the concept of being able to care for, to reach or
to be, 8
HCO Info. Ltr. 22 Jan. 1962 3D CRISS CROSS-METHOD OF ASSESSMENT,10
Proper sequence of action in a 3D Criss Cross Assessment, 10
List a list, 10
Run Havingness, 10
Differentiate the list, 11
Null the list, 11
Check the item, 12
Terminal gives pain, oppterm gives sensation, 12
Errors in assessment, 13
HCO B 25 Jan. 1962 FLOW PROCESS, 14
Compulsive outflow and obsessive withhold are alike aberrated, 14
List of most important flows, 14
Commands of Flow Process, 15
HCO B 1 Feb. 1962 FLOWS, BASIC, 16
CDEI Scale on inflow and outflow, 16
HCO Info. Ltr. 1 Feb. 1962 3D CRISS CROSS-ASSESSMENT TIPS, 17
Complete list in 3DXX, 17
Ways to start a 3DXX line, 17
Differentiation step in 3DXX, 18
HCO Info. Ltr. 3 Feb. 1962 3DXX FLOWS ASSESSMENT, 19
HCO B 8 Feb. 1962 MISSED WITHHOLDS, 20
What is a missed withhold, 20
How to audit missed withholds, 21
Sample missed withhold session, 21
HCO B 12 Feb. 1962 HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED
WITHHOLDS, 23
Auditor objective, 23
Withhold system (difficulty, what, when, all, who), 23
Use a Mark IV, 23
The questions of the withhold system, 24
HCO PL 13 Feb. 1962 3D CRISS CROSS ITEMS, 25
HCO B 15 Feb. 1962 CO-AUDIT & MISSED WITHHOLDS, 25
HCO B 22 Feb. 1962 WITHHOLDS, MISSED AND PARTIAL, 26
Natterings, upsets, ARC breaks, critical tirades, are restimulated but
missed or partially missed withholds, 26
Knowledge to the average person is only this: a knowledge of his or
her withholds, 26
HCO B 1 Mar. 1962 PREPCHECKING, 28
Mechanics of Prepchecking, 28
Administration of Prepchecking, 29
The magic phrase of Prepchecking, 29
Prepcheck example, 29
Control pc's attention, 30
Don't use O/W, 30
How to derive Zeros and Zero A questions, 30
Asking the What question, 31
HCO B 8 Mar. 1962 THE BAD "AUDITOR", 32
The natural auditor and the dangerous auditor described, 32
Remedies for the dangerous auditor, 34
Revelation Process X1, 34
Prepchecking Zero Question, 34
3D Criss Cross, 34
HCO B 15 Mar. 1962 SUPPRESSORS, 36
"Afraid to find out" type of case, 36
The rough pc, 36
"Suppressor"-the impulse to forbid revelation in another, 37
"Dangerous auditor" symptoms, 37
Commands of Revelation Process X2, 38
HCO B 21 Mar. 1962 PREPCHECKING DATA-WHEN TO DO A WHAT, 39
Prechecking example, 39
Moving tone arm, 40
Overts depend on social mores, 40
Don't forget "guilty" in Zero questions, 40
Add "appear, not appear" after "all" in withhold system, 41
Whole track, 41
Unknown incident pins chains, 41
Recurring withholds, 41
Missed withholds, 42
Rudiments in Prepchecking, 42
HCO B 29 Mar. 1962 CCHs AGAIN-WHEN TO USE THE CCHs, 43
Three major processes: the CCHs, Prepchecking, 3D Criss Cross, 43
CCHs must be run right, 44
HCO B 5 Apr. 1962 CCHs-AUDITING ATTITUDE, 45
Description of how to run CCHs properly, 46
Purpose of the CCHs, 47
HCO B 11 Apr. 1962 DETERMINING WHAT TO RUN, 48
Tone arm action as indicator of what to run, 48
Tone arm moves because mass is changing, 48
HCO B 12 Apr. 1962 CCHs-PURPOSE, 50
Purpose of the CCH drills-getting the pc out of the past and into
present time, 50
HCO B 26 Apr. 1962 RECOMMENDED PROCESSES HGC, 51
CCHs, Prepchecking and 3D Criss Cross combination, 51
Alternating CCHs and Prepchecking, 51
Limitations of use of Prepchecking and 3D Criss Cross, 52
HCO Info. Ltr. 29 Apr. 1962 ROUTINE 3G (EXPERIMENTAL), 53
Routine 3G steps in brief, 53
How a goal is checked, 54
Steps of Routine 3D Criss Cross, 55
Steps of Routine 3G, 56
Cautions regarding Routine 3G and 3D Criss Cross, 57
HCO B 3 May 1962 ARC BREAKS-MISSED WITHHOLDS, 58
All ARC breaks stem from missed withholds, 58
Picking up missed withholds keeps pcs in session, 58
Pc manifestations cured by asking for missed withholds, 59
Missed withhold commands, 60
HCO B 10 May 1962 PREPCHECKING AND SEC CHECKING, 62
Combining Sec Checking with Prepchecking, 62
Use of rudiments in Prepchecking, 63
Help the pc, 63
HCO Info Ltr. 10 May 1962 ROUTINE 3GA (EXPERIMENTAL), 64
Difficulties and liabilities in a Routine 3 process, 64
Routine 3GA steps, 64
Step one, find a goal, 64
Step two, list four lists, 65
Step three, null each list, 66
Step four, find a new goal, 66
HCO B 14 May 1962 CASE REPAIR, 67
Routine 1 a, 67
Sec Checking, 67
CCH blowy pcs, 67
Prepchecking repair, 67
CCHs, 68
S-C-S, 68
Op Pro by Dup, 68
Routine 2, 68
Routines 3, 3A and 3D, 69
Routine 3D Criss Cross, 69
General repair, 70
HCO B 21 May 1962 MISSED WITHHOLDS, ASKING ABOUT, 71
HCO B 22 May 1962 MODEL SESSION CHANGE, 72
Beginning rudiments withhold question change, 72
HCO B 23 May 1962 E-METER READS-PREPCHECKING-HOW METERS GET INVALIDATED,
73
Questions to handle missed meter reads, 73
HCO B 24 May 1962 Q AND A, 74
The 3 Qs and As, 74
The double question, 74
Changing because the pc changes, 75
Following the pc's instructions, 76
HCO B 25 May 1962 E-METER INSTANT READS, 77
Major thought and minor thought, 77
Reactive mind is composed of: timelessness, unknownness, survival, 78
HCO PL 26 May 1962 TRAINING DRILLS MUST BE CORRECT, 79
All TRs must contain the correct data of auditing, 79
HCO PL 1 June 1962 AUDITING-RUDIMENTS CHECK SHEET, 81
Rudiments check, 81
HCO B 8 June 1962 RUDIMENTS CHECKING, 82
Two protests sometimes occur when checking a pc's rudiments, 82
HCO B 11 June 1962 PREPCHECKING THE MIDDLE RUDIMENTS, 83
List of Prepchecking Zero questions to be prepchecked, 83
HCO B 14 June 1962 CHECKING NEEDLE IN RUDIMENTS CHECKS, 84
Needle characteristics defined, 84
HCO B 23 June 1962 MODEL SESSION REVISED, 85 [CANCELED]
Start of session, 85
Beginning rudiments, 85
Start of process, 86
Middle rudiments, 86
End rudiments, 86
End of session, 86
End of process non-cyclical, 86
End of process cyclical, 87
Patter on rudiments, 87
HCO B 24 June 1962 PREPCHECKING, 88
Prepcheck procedure, 88
The What question, 89
Testing What questions, 90
HCO B 25 June 1962 E-METER STANDARDS, 91
HCO B 27 June 1962 RUNDOWN ON ROUTINE 3GA, 92
HCO B 28 June 1962 DIRTY NEEDLES-HOW TO SMOOTH OUT NEEDLES, 93
Reasons for dirty needle, 93
HCO B 30 June 1962 ARC PROCESS, 95
Commands of ARC Process, 95
HCO B 2 July 1962 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS-HOW TO GET THE RUDIMENTS IN, 96
Repetitive rudiment cycle, 96
Fast checking on rudiments, 97
HCO B 3 July 1962 REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING, 98
Repetitive Prepchecking replaces Prepchecking by the withhold system,
98
Repetitive Prepchecking procedure, 98
Zero questions time limiter, 99
Middle rudiments, 99
Prepchecking the middle rudiments, 99
O/W assists, 99
HCO B 4 July 1962 BULLETIN CHANGES, 101
Havingness rud, 101
Missed withholds rudiment, 101
General Overt/Withhold before session, 101
End words of rudiments questions, 102
Double cleaning of rudiments, 102
HCO B 4 July 1962 COACHLESS TRAINING-USE OF A DOLL, 103
HCO PL 14 July 1962 AUDITING ALLOWED, 104
Auditors must be perfect on a meter-defined, 104
What is perfect meter reading, 104
HCO PL 15 July 1962 GOALS PREPCHECK FORM-ROUTINE 3GA, 106
HCO PL 17 July 1962 ROUTINE 3GA-HCO WW R-3GA FORM 1-LISTING PREPCHECK, 109
HCO PL 19 July 1962 CLEARING-FREE NEEDLES, 112
State of a ''first goal clear", 112
HCO B 21 July 1962 INSTANT READS, 113
Instant read anticipated on rudiments, 113
HCO PL 22 July 1962 ROUTINE 3GA-LISTING WORDING, 114
HCO PL 24 July 1962 R3GA-HCO WW FORM G3-FAST GOALS CHECK, 115 [REVISED]
HCO B 30 July 1962 A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE, 116
Pattern for a new Problems Intensive, 116
HCO B 1 Aug. 1962 ROUTINE 3GA-GOALS-NULLING BY MID RUDS, 118
The goals list, 118
Test for charge, 118
Nulling by mid ruds, 119
HCO B 1 Aug. 1962 ROUTINE 3GA-NULLING DRILLS FOR NULLING BY
MID RUDS, 122 [REPLACED]
Drill on new nulling procedure for Routine 3GA (Tiger Drill), 122
HCO B 2 Aug. 1962 CCH ANSWERS, 126
How to handle originations on CCHs, 126
HCO B 7 Aug. 1962 RUNNING CCHs, 127
Correct version of CCHs, 127
HCO B 10 Aug. 1962 HOW IT FEELS TO GO CLEAR, 128
Success stories on Routine 3GA, 128
HCO B 13 Aug. 1962 ROCK SLAMS AND DIRTY NEEDLES, 129
What rock slams and dirty needles mean, 129
HCO B 21 Aug. 1962 3GA-LINE WORDING, 130
Listing session, 130
HCO B 22 Aug. 1962 3GA-DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM -DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT
TIP, 131 [CANCELED]
Goals formulae, 132
HCO B 30 Aug. 1962 ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS, 133
HCO B 31 Aug. 1962 3GA-EXPANDED LINE WORDING, 134
HCO B 31 Aug. 1962 3GA-DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM, 135
HCO B 1 Sept. 1962 3GA-DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM, 135
HCO B 2 Sept. 1962 ACCOUNT OF CONGRESS GOAL, 137
Demonstration of Dynamic Assessment by rock slam, 137
HCO B 3 Sept. 1962 3GA-DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM, 138
HCO B 8 Sept. 1962 3GA-TO BE GOALS LINE LISTING, 139
HCO B 12 Sept. 1962 SECURITY CHECKS AGAIN, 140
Security Check by rock slam, 140
HCO PL 12 Sept. 1962 AUTHORIZED PROCESSES, 141
Assists, Problems Intensives (modern version), ordinary 3GA, 3GA by
Dynamic Assessment, 141
HCO B 19 Sept. 1962 3GA-TIPS ON DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT-RULES OF THUMB, 142
HCO B 23 Sept. 1962 A 40-LINE LIST ON A DOINGNESS GOAL, 143
HCO PL 27 Sept. 1962 VALID PROCESSES, 145
HCO B 27 Sept. 1962 PROBLEMS INTENSIVE USE, 146
What Problems Intensive does for pc, 146
HCO B 1 Oct. 1962 3GA-LISTING BY TIGER BUTTONS-114 NEW LINES FOR LISTING,
147
Directions for 3GA listing by Tiger buttons, 148
HCO B 2 Oct. 1962 WHEN YOU NEED REASSURANCE, 149
HCO B 3 Oct. 1962 TIGER DRILLING, 150
Altered goal wording prevents clearing, 150
New line listing success story, 151
HCO PL 8 Oct. 1962 HGC CLEARING, 152
Auditing sold by intensives, 153
Clearing assembly line, 153
Pc forms, 154
Accidental goal finding, 154
HCO B 13 Oct. 1962 PROCESSES, 156
SHSBC X Unit processes, 156
SHSBC Y Unit processes, 156
SHSBC Z Unit processes, 156
HCO B 15 Oct. 1962 GOAL FINDER'S MODEL SESSION, 157 [CANCELED]
Mid Ruds, 157
Ending the session, 157
End of session, 158
HCO B 16 Oct. 1962 ROUTINE 3GA-LISTING, 159
Dominant rules of Routine 3GA listing, 159
Scale of answering comm lags, 159
HCO B 17 Oct. 1962 AUDITOR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND, 161
Invalidation, avoid use of "you" to pc, 161
Evaluation, auditor repeating what pc says, 161
Driving in anchor points, 161
Rock slammer, 161
HCO B 18 Oct. 1962 3GA-LISTING BY PREHAV, 163
3GA listing by Prehav, directions, 164
HCO PL 19 Oct. 1962 R3GA-HCO WW FORM G3, REVISED-FAST GOALS CHECK, 165
HCO B 29 Oct. 1962 PRE-CLEARING INTENSIVE, 166
Assessment for clearing intensive, 166
HCO B 7 Nov. 1962 WRONG GOALS, IMPORTANCE OF REPAIR OF, 167
Symptoms of a right goal listed wrongly, 167
Symptoms of a wrong or improperly cleaned goal unlisted, 168
Symptoms of a wrong goal listed, 168
Symptoms of a right goal unlisted, 169
HCO B 7 Nov. 1962 ROUTINE 3-21-THE TWENTY-ONE STEPS-FINDING
GOALS, 170
Rock slamming items, 172
HCO B 7 Nov. 1962 "ROLL YOUR OWN" PREHAV, 173
How to do "Roll Your Own" Prehav, 173
Terms defined, 173
The most accurate assessment, 173
Doing the Prehav assessment, 174
HCO B 8 Nov. 1962 SOMATICS-HOW TO TELL TERMINALS AND OPPOSITION TERMINALS,
175
Definitions of important terms, 175
Testing for the character of an item, 177
Ways of asking for terminal and opposition terminal, 177
Using Tiger Drill buttons, 177
The line plot, 178
HCO B 11 Nov. 1962 3GAXX-STRAIGHTENING UP 3GAXX CASES, 179
HCO B 12 Nov. 1962 3GAXX-DIRTY NEEDLES AND INCOMPLETE LISTS -HOW TO ASSESS,
180
Assessment steps of 3GAXX, 180
HCO B 17 Nov. 1962 ROUTINE 3-21, 182
By-passed item defined, 182
Exact way to do Routine 3-21 Step 6, 183
HCO B 23 Nov. 1962 ROUTINE TWO-TWELVE-OPENING PROCEDURE BY ROCK SLAM-AN
HPA/HCA SKILL, 185
The slow-gain, no-gain cases, 185
Routine Two-Twelve procedure, 186
Questions for the second pair, 188
R2-12 lists, 1 88
Skills required to accomplish a 3GAXX for rock slammers, 189
Fast step resume, 190
HCO B 24 Nov. 1962 ROUTINE 2-12-LIST ONE-ISSUE ONE -THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST,
191
HCO B 28 Nov. 1962 R2-12-PRACTICAL DRILLS, 193
Basic auditing skills needed to audit with 2-12, 193
Coaching notes, 194
HCO B 29 Nov. 1962 ROUTINE 2-12-LIST ONE-ISSUE TWO -THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST,
195
HCO B 29 Nov. 1962 ROUTINES 2-12, 3-21 AND 3GAXX-TIGER DRILL FOR NULLING BY
MID RUDS, 196
Drill on new nulling procedures, 196
HCO PL 1 Dec. 1962 GOALS & PREPCHECKING, 201
HCO B 4 Dec. 1962 ROUTINE 2-12-LIST ONE-ISSUE THREE -THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST,
202
HCO B 5 Dec. 1962 2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 AND ROUTINE 2-10-MODERN
ASSESSMENT, 203
What assessment is prevented by, 203
Definitions of important terms, 203
Writing the list, 204
Nulling, 206
List appearances, 207
Assessments, 208
Routine 2-10 (R2-12 short form for beginners), 208
HCO B 6 Dec. 1962 R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX-DATA, THE ZERO A STEPS AND PURPOSE OF
PROCESSES, 210
Zero list questions or R2-12, 21 1
"Never RSing" pcs, 212
Rocket reads vs. RSes, 212
Purpose of processes, 213
HCO B 8 Dec. 1962 TRAINING-X UNIT, 214
HCO B 9 Dec. 1962 ROUTINE 2-12-LIST ONE-ADD TO LIST ONE ISSUE THREE, 215
HCO B 15 Dec. 1962 R2-12-THE FATAL ERROR, 216
HCO B 30 Dec. 1962 ROUTINES 2-12 & 2-10-CASE ERRORS-POINTS OF GREATEST
IMPORTANCE, 217
Auditing errors, 217
The errors of Routine Two, 218
Auditor responsibility, 219
Duration of process, 219
No auditing, 219
Failure to save records, 220
Failing to find RSs on List One, 220
Representing an RSing item, 221
Oppose RIs, 221
Incomplete lists, 221
Wrong way oppose, test for, 222
Lists that won't complete, 223
Long long lists, 223
Case remedy, 226
HCO B 1 Jan. 1963 ACADEMY CURRICULUM-HOW TO TEACH AUDITING AND ROUTINE 2,
227
Check sheets, 227
V Unit Class 0, first phase, 227
W Unit Class Ia, second phase, 227
X Unit Class Ib, third phase, 228
Y Unit Class IIa, fourth phase, 228
Z Unit Class IIb, fifth phase, 229
Post Graduate Unit-Class II, sixth phase, 228
HCO B 3 Jan. 1963 ROUTINE 2-OPPOSITION LISTS-RIGHT AND WRONG OPPOSE, 230
Potential miscalling a reliable item, 230
Oppose list, right way indications, 231
Oppose list, wrong way oppose indications, 231
On an oppose list, what a dirty needle means, 232
HCO B 27 Jan. 1963 ROUTINE 2-SIMPLIFIED, 233
Tone arm, 233
List beyond last rock slam, 233
Test list both ways, 233
Wrong way list, 234
Vanished RS, 234
Four item packages, 234
Packaging, 234
Nulling, 235
Wrong item signs, 236
Right item signs, 236
Dirty needle, 236
Rock slam matching, 236
Using ARC breaks, 237
Case repair, 237
Dope-off, 237
Never represent a rock slam item, 237
Allow no self listing of goals, 238
Never steer items, 238
HCO B 11 Feb. 1963 CURRENT AUDITING, 239
R3-MX becomes R3-M, 239
R2- 12A, 240
Valid processes list, 240
HCO B 15 Feb. 1963 R2-R3-LISTING RULES, 241
Rules of a complete list for R2 or R3, 241
HCO B 20 Feb. 1963 ROUTINE 2 & 3 MODEL SESSION, 243 [CANCELED]
Session preliminaries, 243
Start of session, 243
Rudiments, 244
Running O/W, 244
Running the mid rudiments, 244
Running the random rudiment, 244
End of session, 245
HCO PL 21 Feb. 1963 GOALS CHECK, 246
Goals and reliable items found on students, staff or HGC pcs must be
checked out, 246
HCO B 4 Mar. 1963 ROUTINE 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A, 247
Cease to use Routine 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A in the HGC and Academy and
on staff clearing, with two exceptions, 247
HCO B 8 Mar. 1963 USE OF THE BIG MIDDLE RUDIMENTS, 248
Order of big mid rud buttons, 248
HCO B 10 Mar. 1963 ROUTINE 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A-VANISHED RS OR RR, 249
What makes rocket reads and rock slams vanish, 249
Restoring the RR & RS, 249
All items count, 250
Four RIs, 250
HCO B 14 Mar. 1963 ROUTINE 2-ROUTINE 3-ARC BREAKS, HANDLING OF, 251
The R2 or R3 ARC break, 251
Cause of R2 and R3 ARC breaks, 251
ARC break rule, 251
Mid rud rule, 251
The sad effect, 251
Sad effect rules, 252
ARC break cause rule, 252
The fifteen principal causes of ARC break in R2 and R3, 252
The cycle of the ARC break, 253
The auditor's view on ARC break, 253
The D of P's view on ARC break, 253
R2 and R3 Drill One, 254
HCO B 18 Mar. 1963 R2-R3-IMPORTANT DATA-DON'T FORCE THE PC, 255
Listing, wrong way to symptoms, 255
Body vs. thetan, 255
How listing a wrong item can happen, 256
Travelling rocket read, 257
Wrong wording of item or goal, 257
Item from another GPM, 258
Minimize goal oppose lists, 258
Clear test, 259
HCO B 23 Mar. 1963 CLEAR & OT, 260
GPM left uncleaned gives liabilities, 261
HCO B 13 Apr. 1963 ROUTINE 2-G-ORIGINAL ROUTINE 2, 3GA, 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A
AND OTHERS SPECIALLY ADAPTED-GOALS FINDING-DESIGNATION OF
ROUTINES, 262
Routine 2-G1, 262
Routine 2-GPH, 262
Routine 2-2, 262
Routine 2-G3, 262
Routine 2-G4, 262
Routine 2-G5, 262
HCO B 25 Apr. 1963 METER READING TRS, 264
E-Meter TR 20-Reach and withdraw on the E-Meter, 264
E-Meter TR 21-Reading E-Meter accurately, 265
HCO B 29 Apr. 1963 MODERNIZED TRAINING DRILLS USING PERMISSIVE COACHING,
266 [CANCELED]
TR 0, Confronting Preclear, 266
TR 0 (A), 267
TR 0 (B), 267
TR 0 (C), 267
TR 0 (D), 267
TR 1, Dear Alice, 268
TR 2, Acknowledgments, 269
TR 3, Duplicative Question, 269
TR 4, Preclear Originations, 271
Coaches' Drill, 272
HCO B 15 May 1963 THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS -BULLETIN 1,
273
Engram running simplified, 273
Why people have trouble running engrams, 273
The time track, 274
Definitions, 274
The influence of the time track, 275
The creation of the time track, 275
Apparent faults in the time track, 275
The origin of the time track, 276
HCO B 21 May 1963 ROUTINE 3-R-3 MODEL SESSION, 278 [CANCELED]
Session preliminaries, 278
Start of session, 278
Rudiments, 278
Running O/W, 279
Running the mid rudiments, 279
Order of big mid rud buttons, 279
Pulling missed withholds, 279
Body of session, 280
End body of session, 280
Smooth out session, 280
Goals and gains, 280
Havingness, 280
Ending session, 280
HCO B 27 May 1963 CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS, 281
How charge can be by-passed, 281
How Q and A causes ARC breaks, 283
ARC Break Processes, 284
Rudiments, 284
Q and A ARC breaks, 285
Echo metering, 285
Missed withholds, 285
Apparent bad morale, 285
HCO B 8 June 1963 THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS -BULLETIN 2-
HANDLING THE TIME TRACK, 287
Reasons why some cannot run engrams on pcs, 287
Three ways to move a time track, 287
Charge and the time track, 289
State of Case Scale, 289
Charge, 290
Auditing theory of charge erasure, 291
HCO B 24 June 1963 ROUTINE 3-ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS-BULLETIN 3-ROUTINE 3-
R-ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS, 292
Example of Q and A, 292
ARC breaks, 293
Early engram running, 294
Routine 3-R, 294
R3-R by steps, 294
HCO B 25 June 1963 ROUTINE 2H-ARC BREAKS BY ASSESSMENT, 297
R2H by steps, 297
R2H assessment form, 298
HCO B 1 July 1963 ROUTINE 3R-BULLETIN 4-PRELIMINARY STEP, 299
R3R procedure of assessment, 300
ARC breaks in preliminary step, 300
Development of assessments, 300
Three most important visible factors in R3R, 301
R3R assessment, 302
HCO B 5 July 1963 ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS, 306
General ARC break assessment-List L-1, 307
Assessment sessions-listing sessions-preliminary step R3 R
-the ARC break for assessments list-List L-2, 307
Routine R3R-engram running by chains-List L-3, 308
Routine 3N-GPMs, all goals sessions-List L4, 308
HCO B 5 July 1963 CCHs REWRITTEN, 310 [REPLACED]
CCH 1, Give Me That Hand, 310
CCH 2, Tone 40 8-C, 311
CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry, 312
CCH 4, Book Mimicry, 312
HCO B 9 July 1963 A TECHNICAL SUMMARY-THE REQUIRED SKILLS OF PROCESSING
AND WHY, 314
Auditor skills by case level, 314
Basic skills of an auditor, 315
Former training was not wasted, 316
Hours of processing required, 317
Difficulty of clearing, 317
HCO B 11 July 1963 AUDITING RUNDOWN-MISSED WITHHOLDS -TO BE RUN IN XI UNIT,
318
HCO B 21 July 1963 CO-AUDIT ARC BREAK PROCESS, 319
Despatch regarding ARC Break 1963 Process, 319
HCO B 22 July 1963 YOU CAN BE RIGHT, 321
Overt acts, 321
Asserting rightness vs. being right, 322
Rehabilitating the ability to be right, 322
HCO B 22 July 1963 ORG TECHNICAL-HGC PROCESSES AND TRAINING, 324
Programming pcs, 324
Pc gains, 325
Auditing precautions, 325
Auditor skill, 326
HCO B 23 July 1963 AUDITING RUNDOWN-MISSED WITHHOLDS -TO BE RUN IN X1 UNIT,
328
HCO B 28 July 1963 TIME AND THE TONE ARM, 329
Tone arm motion, 329
The mechanics of time, 330
Programming cases, 331
HCO B 29 July 1963 SCIENTOLOGY REVIEW, 332
Wins on PTPs of Scientology, 332
Between lives implants, 333
HCO B 4 Aug. 1963 E-METER ERRORS-COMMUNICATION CYCLE ERROR,
334
E-Meter dependence, 334
Dating dependence, 334
RIs and use of E-Meter, 334
E-Meter invalidation, 335
Cleaning cleans, 335
Dirty needle, 335
Basic error of the auditing cycle (diagram), 337
HCO B 9 Aug. 1963 DEFINITION OF RELEASE, 338
HCO B 11 Aug. 1963 ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS, 338
HCO B 14 Aug. 1963 LECTURE GRAPHS, 339
SHSBC LRH Lecture 25 July 63 graph-Comm Cycles in Auditing, 340
SHSBC LRH Lecture 7 Aug. 63 graph-R-2H Fundamentals, 343
SHSBC LRH Lecture 8 Aug. 63 graph-R-2H Assessment, 344
HCO B 19 Aug. 1963 HOW TO DO AN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT, 345
ARC break assessment by steps, 345
Purpose of ARC break assessment, 346
Two conditions of living, 347
HCO B 20 Aug. 1963 R3R-R3N-THE PRECLEAR'S POSTULATES, 349
Don't leave postulates charged, 349
HCO B 22 Aug. 1963 PROJECT 80-THE ITSA LINE AND TONE ARM, 351
SHSBC lectures necessary for great technical improvement in the
organization, 351
Keep staff attention squarely on: the itsa line, the tone arm, proper
use of ARC break assessments, and directing pc's attention
adroitly, 352
HCO B 1 Sept. 1963 ROUTINE THREE SC, 353
What a service facsimile is, 353
What a service facsimile is used for, 354
Steps to make a Clear, 354
Completing clearing, 355
Faults present in the auditing if clearing did not occur, 355
HCO B 6 Sept. 1963 INSTRUCTING IN SCIENTOLOGY AUDITING- INSTRUCTOR'S TASK-D
of P's CASE HANDLING, 357
Drawing A-auditor's perception of the pc as limited by auditor's own
service facsimile, 357
Drawing B-auditor's perception of the pc with service fac removed, 357
Drawing C-safe assumptions, 357
Drawing D-instruction which produces Drawing B, 358
Auditor's conditions of observation of pc: Drawings A, B, C and D, 360
HCO B 9 Sept. 1963 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING, 361
How to get the rudiments in, 361
Fast checking on rudiments, 361
Repetitive Prepchecking, 361
End words, 362
Double cleaning of rudiments, 362
HCO B 22 Sept. 1963 PREPCHECK BUTTONS, 363 [CANCELED]
18 Prepcheck buttons, 363
Big mid ruds, 363
Two useful pairs-suppress and invalidate, and protested and decided,
364
Dirty needle, 364
The old order of Prepcheck buttons, 364
HCO B 23 Sept. 1963 TAPE COVERAGE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY, 365
List of tapes containing a full progressive summary of modem
Scientology, 365
HCO B 25 Sept. 1963 ADEQUATE TONE ARM ACTION, 367
TA amount per session, 367
TA amount per intensive, 367
HCO B 1 Oct. 1963 HOW TO GET TONE ARM ACTION, 369
New data on the E-Meter, 369
Tone arm assessment, 369
What tone arm action comes from, 370
Over-restimulation, 371
Sources of restimulation, 372
List for assessment, 372
Measure of auditors, 373
Slow assessment means letting the pc itsa while assessing, 373
How to get TA action, 374
What is itsa, 374
The theory of tone arm action, 375
HCO B 2 Oct. 1963 GPMs-EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS WITHDRAWN, 376
R4MTA has been canceled, 376
HCO B 8 Oct. 1963 HOW TO GET TA-ANALYSING AUDITING, 377
Data of listen style auditing, 377
Basic crimes of listen style auditing, 377
Listen style auditing, steps to learn, 378
HCO B 16 Oct. 1963 R3SC SLOW ASSESSMENT, 379
Report from SHSBC student on auditing success, 379
HCO B 19 Nov. 1963 ROUTINE 3-R-3 MODEL SESSION REVISED, 381 [CANCELED]
Session preliminaries, 381
Start of session, 381
Rudiments, 38l
Running O/W, 382
Running the mid rudiments, 382
Order of big mid rud buttons, 382
Pulling missed withholds, 382
Body of session, 382
End body of session, 383
Smooth out session, 383
Goals and gains, 383
Havingness, 383
Ending session, 383
HCO B 25 Nov. 1963 DIRTY NEEDLES, 384
Cause of dirty needles, 384
HCO B 26 Nov. 1963 A NEW TRIANGLE-BASIC AUDITING, TECHNIQUE, CASE ANALYSIS,
385
Basic auditing, 385
Auditing techniques, 385
Case analysis, 386
HCO B 14 Dec.. 1963 CASE ANALYSIS-HEALTH RESEARCH, 388
Steps for case analysis, 388
Example of case analysis on chronic bronchitis, 388
HCO B 28 Dec.. 1963 INDICATORS-PART ONE: GOOD INDICATORS, 390
List of good indicators on R6, 390
R6 auditor musts, 392
HCO B 21 Jan. 1964 METER LEVEL WARNING-HOW TO KILL A PC IN
LEVEL 5, 394
Breath and body motion, 394
HCO PL 24 Jan. 1964 CASE SUPERVISOR, 395
Establishment and purpose of Case Supervisor, 395
HCO B 1 Mar. 1964 METER READS, SIZE OF, 396
Reads are bigger on higher levels, 396
How to get TA action, 397
HCO B 4 Mar. 1964 CLASS II MODEL SESSION, 398 [CANCELED]
Session preliminaries, 398
Start of session, 398
Beginning rudiments, 398
Running O/W, 398
Start of process, 399
Middle rudiments, 399
End rudiments, 399
Goals and gains, 399
End of session, 399
End of process non-cyclical, 399
End of process cyclical, 399
HCO B 15 Mar. 1964 OVERWHELMING THE PC, 400
Consequences of pc being overwhelmed, 400
Examples of overwhelm, 400
HCO B 15 Mar. 1964 METER-EVERYTHING READING, 402
E-Meter ability, 402
The abandoned item or goal-another way everything reads, 403
Wrong goals, 404
HCO PL 18 Mar. 1964 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 406
ARC '63; Recall a Terminal and Problems Intensive, alternated with R-
2H; 8-C and any older processes the auditor has confidence in,
406
Avoid R-2-12, R-3 and R-4 type processes, 406
HCO Info. Ltr. 2 Apr. 1964 TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE, 407
Two types of behavior-that calculated to be constructive and that
calculated to be disastrous, 407
The same being at different lifetimes is good and evil, 408
HCO B 7 Apr. 1964 Q AND A, 410
Q and A is a failure to complete a cycle of action on a preclear, 410
Cycle of action is redefined as start-continue-complete, 410
HCO B 10 Apr. 1964 AUDITING SKILLS, 411
Auditing skills by Scientology levels, 411
Things a Class VI auditor should know, 412
HCO B 13 Apr. 1964 TONE ARM ACTION, 413
Auditor failure to understand, 414
Invalidation, 414
Evaluation, 414
Dirty needles, 414
Cleaning cleans, 415
Echo metering, 415
Don't echo invalidate, 415
E-Meter invalidation, 415
E-Meter dependence, 416
Charge, 416
By-passed charge, 417
The cycle of the ARC break, 417
ARC break assessment, 418
Q and A ARC breaks, 419
Pc tone, 419
HCO B 20 Apr. 1964 MODEL SESSION-LEVELS III TO VI, 420 [CANCELED]
Session preliminaries, 420
Start of session, 420
Rudiments, 420
Running O/W, 420
Running the mid rudiments, 421
Order of big mid rud buttons, 421
Pulling missed withholds, 421
Body of session, 421
End body of session, 421
Smooth out session, 422
Goals and gains, 422
Havingness, 422
Ending session, 422
HCO B 23 Apr. 1964 AUDITING BY LISTS, 423 [REPLACED]
Auditing by lists-L.1 and L.4, 423
The Auditor, Issue 1, May 1964 THE WORKABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY, 425
Auditor becomes an auditor when he or she finds out that it's the
basics that count, 425
Auditor makes the session always and the preclear never, 425
What is a good auditor, 426
HCO B 19 May 1964 CLASS II MODEL SESSION, 428 [CANCELED]
Session preliminaries, 428
Start of session, 428
Beginning rudiments, 428
Running O/W, 428
Start of process, 429
Middle rudiments, 429
End of process non-cyclical, 429
End of process cyclical, 429
End rudiments, 429
Goals and gains, 429
End of session, 430
HCO B 27 May 1964 AUDITING ASSIGNMENTS, 431
Student auditing assignments, 431
Student auditor training, 431
HCO B 29 June 1964 CENTRAL ORG AND FIELD AUDITOR TARGETS, 432
Master one action and center people's attention upon it, 433
Drawbacks of Level VI, 433
Type A and Type B pcs, 434
Your programme, 43 5
HCO B 7 July 1964 JUSTIFICATIONS, 436
The reasons overts are overts to people is justifications, 436
New overt process, 436
HCO B 8 July 1964 MORE JUSTIFICATIONS, 437
List of Scientology justifications, 437
HCO B 10 July 1964 OVERTS-ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING, 438
Responsibility, 438
ARC breaks, 438
Forbidden words, 439
Why overts work, 439
HCO B 12 July 1964 MORE ON O/Ws, 441
Itsa processes for O/W, 441
HCO B 24 July 1964 TA COUNTERS, USE OF, 443
How to record TA motion, 443
How often one reads and notes TA action, 444
HCO B 29 July 1964 GOOD INDICATORS AT LOWER LEVELS, 445
List of good indicators, 445
HCO B 14 Aug. 1964 PREPCHECK BUTTONS, 446
18 Prepcheck buttons, 446
Big mid ruds, 446
Two useful pairs: suppress and not-ised, protested and decided, 447
Dirty needle, 447
The old order of Prepcheck buttons, 447
HCO B 14 Aug. 1964 MODEL SESSION-LEVELS III TO VI, 448 [CANCELED]
Session preliminaries, 448
Start of session, 448
Rudiments, 448
Running O/W, 448
Running the mid rudiments, 449
Order of big mid rud buttons, 449
Pulling missed withholds, 449
Body of session, 449
End body of session, 449
Smooth out session, 449
Goals and gains, 450
Havingness, 450
Ending session, 450
HCO B 17 Aug. 1964 CLAY TABLE WORK IN TRAINING AND PROCESSING, 451
The construction of clay tables, 451
Clay table use on courses, 452
Clay table work in processing, 453
Clay Table Healing, 453
Intelligence, 454
Clay Table IQ Processing, 454
Handling clay, 455
HCO B 18 Aug. 1964 CLAY TABLE WORK COVERING CLAY TABLE CLEARING IN DETAIL,
456
Hidden standard mechanism, 456
Clay Table Clearing, 457
The steps of Clay Table Clearing, 458
HCO B 23 Aug. 1964 HQS COURSE, 461
Purpose of HQS Course, 461
"Therapeutic" TRs, 461
End product of HQS Course, 462
HCO B 24 Aug. 1964 SESSION MUST-NOTS, 463
Never tell a pc what his present time problem is, 463
Never set a goal for a pc, 463
Never tell a pc what's wrong with him physically or assume that you
know, 463
Permitted auditor statements, 464
In the overt-motivator sequence, 464
In the ARC break, 465
HCO B 7 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE LEVELS, 466
Clay table work is Level III, 466
What clay table work handles, 466
HCO B 7 Sept. 1964 PTPs, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS, 468
How to handle present time problems, 468
Overts must be handled, 468
Handling ARC breaks, 469
HCO B 8 Sept. 1964 OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM?, 471
Cycle of an overt, 471
Overts and misunderstood words, 471
HCO B 9 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE HEALING, 472
Clay Table Healing and Clay Table Clearing are different, 472
Clay Table Healing steps, 472
Clay Table Healing don'ts, 473
HCO B 9 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE CLEARING, 475
Clay Table Clearing goof in "didn't understand" step two, 475
HCO B 12 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE, MORE GOOFS, 476
Not using correct wording, 476
Not using data pc gives, 476
Auditing over an ARC break, 476
Not knowing the full definition-misunderstanding-overt-motivator
cycle, 476
Turning the get-the-word into a kind of listing session; not accepting
the word the pc thinks it is, 477
Failure to get a label written and placed on the object, 477
HCO PL 24 Sept. 1964 INSTRUCTION & EXAMINATION: RAISING THE STANDARD OF,
478
Instruction is done on a gradient scale, 479
Bulletin checkouts, 480
First phenomenon of misunderstood word, 480
Second phenomenon of misunderstood word, 480
Demonstration, 48l
HCO B 27 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE CLEARING, 483
Clay Table Clearing don'ts, 483
Clay Table Clearing steps, 484
Routine auditing vs. remedies, 485
Future errors, 486
E-Meter, 486
Session form, 486
HCO PL 28 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE USE, 487
Who may use clay table auditing, 487
HCO PL 4 Oct. 1964 THEORY CHECK-OUT DATA, 488
Theory check-out system, 488
The "bright" ones, 488
Coaching in theory, 489
Dictionaries, 489
HCO B 17 Oct. 1964 CLAY TABLE DATA, 490
Importance of getting auditing questions answered in clay table
auditing, 490
HCO B 17 Oct. 1964 GETTING THE PC SESSIONABLE, 491
The liabilities of auditing new pcs, 49l Covert auditing, 491
HCO B 17 Oct. 1964 CLEARING-WHY IT WORKS-HOW IT IS NECESSARY, 493
Mechanics of the reactive bank, 493 Gradient scale of auditing, 493
HCO B 1 Nov. 1964 MORE CLAY TABLE CLEARING GOOFS, 496
Goof is that the pc did not represent the word, 496
Causes of a pc just doodling in clay, 496
Resolutions of pc doodling in clay, 497
Auditing cycle vital in Clay Table Clearing, 497
HCO B 6 Nov. 1964 STYLES OF AUDITING, 498
Listen style auditing, 498
Muzzled auditing, 499
Guiding style auditing, 500
Abridged style auditing, 501
Direct style auditing, 502
All style auditing, 503
HCO B 12 Nov. 1964 DEFINITION PROCESSES, 505
Auditing style, 505
Assists, 505
Secondary styles, 50 5
Remedies, 506
Guiding style, 506
Guiding secondary style, 506
Definitions processing, 506
Remedy A patter, 506
Remedy B, 507
Purpose of Definitions Processing, 507
Understanding, 508
Cycle of mis-definition, 508
HCO B 16 Nov. 1964 CLAY TABLE LABEL GOOFS, 509
Pc must label everything he or she makes in clay table work, 509
HCO B 10 Dec. 1964 LISTEN STYLE AUDITING, 511
Listen style co-audit, 511
Procedure for running listen style co-audit, 511
Listen style auditing for an individual, 512
Prompters, 5 12
HCO B 11 Dec. 1964 CURRICULUM FOR LEVEL 0-HAS, 514
Theory requirements, 514
Practical requirements, 514
Auditing requirements, 515
Study goal, 515
Goals as an auditor and as a pc, 515
HCO B 11 Dec. 1964 SCIENTOLOGY 0-PROCESSES, 516
Pc end phenomena of Level 0, 516
Routines, 5 17
Wordings of routines, 518
Routine 0-0 (Zero-Zero), 518
Routine 0-A, 518
Routine 0-B, 518
Routine 0-C, 519
HCO B 26 Dec. 1964 ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED), 520
Steps of Routine 0-A (Expanded), 520
Listen style co-audit, 521
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 JANUARY 1962
CenOCon
Franchise
HCO SECURITY FORM 19
LAUDATORY WITHHOLDS
Know to Mystery Processing Check
(A Class II Auditor's Skill)
This is a most interesting and revelatory processing check. It may be
done at any time but preferably after the last two pages of the Joburg
(Form 3) and Form 6 on old Scientologists and Form HCO B 21 September 1961,
Children's Sec Check, on others. Doing this check at once on brand-new
people engages their interest and eases the way to more severe checks.
This check is run as follows:
Run 3 questions or 20 minutes of the check. Then run 10 minutes of the
pc's havingness process. On any particularly hot trio of this check, go
over the three again and again. It will be noticed that the check is
divided in sections of 3 questions each for that purpose.
Use the current HCO British E-Meter. Many withholds dc; not show on
other meters even when their electrical responses are the same as the
British meter. The mental responses are not the same.
NEVER LEAVE A QUESTION UNFLAT ON ANY PROCESSING (SECURITY) CHECK. Nul
the needle reaction before leaving any question (although an unflat
question can be interrupted to run havingness).
Run in Model Session 21 December 1961 or later with Rudiments IN. Short
session a pc to keep them in when the pc is restive. Do a thorough job on
the withhold question in the rudiments even when doing a Processing (Sec)
Check.
Use only instant reads. Repeat question exactly as written and see if
it is nul before leaving it.
1. Have you ever withheld a vital piece of information?
2. Have you ever made anyone guilty of withholding vital information?
3. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others give vital
information?
4. Have you ever withheld looking?
5. Have you ever made anyone guilty of not looking?
6. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others look?
7. Have you ever withheld emotion?
8. Have you ever made anyone guilty of being emotional?
9. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others emotional?
10. Have you ever withheld effort?
11. Have you ever made anyone guilty of using effort?
12. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others use effort?
13. Have you ever withheld thinking?
14. Have you ever made anyone guilty of thinking?
15. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others think?
16. Have you ever withheld symbols (words)?
17. Have you ever made anyone guilty of using symbols (words)?
18. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others use symbols
(words)?
19. Have you ever withheld eating?
20. Have you ever made anyone guilty of eating?
21. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others eat?
22. Have you ever withheld sex?
23. Have you ever made anyone guilty of sex?
24. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others have sex?
25. Have you ever withheld a mystery?
26. Have you ever made anyone guilty of a mystery?
27. Have you ever prevented anyone from causing others a mystery?
28. Have you ever withheld waiting?
29. Have you ever made anyone guilty of waiting?
30. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others wait?
31. Have you ever withheld unconsciousness?
32. Have you ever made anyone guilty of unconsciousness?
33. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others unconscious?
34. Have you ever withheld anything?
35. Have you ever made anyone guilty of withholding?
36. Have you ever prevented anyone from telling a withhold?
37. Have you ever withheld security checking?
38. Have you ever made anyone guilty of security checking?
39. Have you ever sought to prevent another from security checking?
--------------
The check may be continued using any specific knowledge, any
perception, any emotion (see Tone Scale), any version of effort (force,
strength), any version of thinking including doubt and suspicion, any
version of symbols (including books), any version of sexual actions, any
eating or consumption of anything (including money), any version of mystery
including stupidity, any version of waiting, and any version of
unconsciousness including sleep and chemical or physical means of producing
sleep.
By running the general version first and then doing a survey of any
pc's announced difficulties along the Know to Mystery Scale and then by
putting down these items on the appropriate places in the check, great case
gains can be made.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: sf jh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 9 JANUARY 1962
Sthil Course
3D List
3D CRISS CROSS
To prevent misassessment I have been developing some new methods of
obtaining a 3D package. Because goals lists get lost there is need also for
ways of getting a 3D package without having the goal.
One of these is to run O/W on self, list the pc's answers and then ask
the pc, "Who would you treat like that?" Bleed the meter and nul and you
will find an item of the 3D package you can then use, either as criss cross
or to get a goal and modifier. This is very workable and useful. It is most
useful in 3D Criss Cross.
Further, if a pc blows clear on assessment, you can do the above, find
his goal and modifier and get the Goals Problem Mass keyed back in again.
The GPM will always key back in by finding the modifier to a goal.
-------------
Criss Cross, complete, consists of the following steps:
1. Ask the pc "What kind of person or being haven't you liked?" and make
a complete list.
2. Nul the list and locate one item that remains in (or was the last
in). (Make sure ruds are in in all nulling.) (There may be more than
one item staying in. If so take strongest read.)
3. Ask the pc "What kind of person or being have you liked?" and make a
complete list.
4. Nul the list and locate one item as in 2.
The two resulting items are called TEST ITEMS. They are not
necessarily 3D package items.
5. Write the item found in 2 at the top of a sheet of paper. Ask the pc
"Who or what would oppose (item)?" Make a complete list. (Never suggest
any item to a pc ever.) Bleed the meter for all items.
6. Nul this list down to one item (assessment by elimination as always,
of course).
7. Write the item found in 4 down at the top of a sheet of paper and
proceed as in 5.
8. Nul this list down to one item.
9. Write the item found in 5 at the top of a sheet and proceed as
before.
10. Nul the list to one item.
11. Write the item found in 8 at the top of a sheet and proceed as
before.
12. Nul down to one item as before.
Continue to do lists and items as in 9, 10, 11 and 12.
BE VERY ACCURATE IN FINDING THE RIGHT ITEM EACH TIME.
The two lists will eventually collide as a solid package. It will not
be easy (or perhaps even possible) to find anything else on the case. When
this condition is reached, you have 3D package items of high level, capable
of being run.
When doing listing and nulling, carefully note whenever an item gave
the pc a painful somatic or a dizziness. It will be the painful somatic
type of item that is the terminal, the dizzy or "winds of space" item that
is the oppterm.
13. Select which is terminal, which is oppterm by usual tests.
14. Find the goal, oppgoal and Modifier for the package.
15. Run with 3D type commands.
When this package is well discharged or blows, do another 3D Criss
Cross using the items that were being run in 15 as the starting points for
steps 5 on.
You will be rather amazed how much this type of assessment does for the
case and how low a level case it can be done upon.
You're welcome.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:cw.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
9-10 January 1962
** 6201C09 SHSBC-97 Twenty-Ten-3DXX
** 6201C10 SHSBC-98 Sec Checks-Withholds
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JANUARY 1962
CenOCon
Franchise
SECURITY CHECKING
TWENTY-TEN
THEORY
All valences are circuits are valences.
Circuits key out with knowingness.
This is the final definition of havingness.
Havingness is the concept of being able to reach. No-havingness is the
concept of not being able to reach.
A withhold makes one feel he or she cannot reach. Therefore withholds
are what cut havingness down and made runs on havingness attain unstable
gains. In the presence of withholds havingness sags.
As soon as a withhold is pulled, ability to reach is potentially
restored but the pc often does not discover this. It requires that
havingness be run to get the benefit of having pulled most withholds.
Therefore on these principles, I have developed Twenty-Ten. Providing
the following items are observed and the procedure followed exactly, Twenty-
Ten will appear to work miracles rapidly.
REQUISITES
1. That the auditor is Class II (or Class IIb at Saint Hill).
2. That a British HCO WW Tech Sec approved meter is employed and no
other.
3. That the auditor knows how to find the pc's havingness process (36
Havingness processes).
4. That the havingness process is tested for loosening the needle at the
beginning of each time used.
5. That standard HCO Policy Letter Form Sec Checks are used. The last
two pages of the Joburg and Form 6 for Scientologists, the childhood
check and Form 19 for newcomers, the remainder of the Joburg and other
checks for all
6. That the procedure of Twenty-Ten is exactly followed.
TWENTY-TEN
A Class II Auditor's Skill
1. Use Model Session HCO B of 21 December 1961 or as amended.
2. For every Twenty Minutes of Security Checking run Ten Minutes of
Havingness.
3. If the Security question is not nul when the Twenty Minutes
period is ended, say to the pc, "Although there may be withholds
remaining on this question, we will now run Havingness."
4. If an unflat question is left to run havingness, return to it after
Ten Minutes of havingness and complete it.
5. Run by the clock, not by the state of the question or meter on both
security questions and havingness.
6. Be prepared to have to find a new havingness process any time the one
being used fails to loosen needle after 8 to 10 commands. Do can
squeeze test before first havingness command and after 8 to 10
questions every time havingness process is used.
7. Do not count time employed in finding a havingness process as part of
time havingness is to be run.
8. Use "Has a withhold been missed on you?" liberally throughout
session. Use it heavily in end rudiments.
-------------
Application to Goals Problem Mass
The GPM is often curved out of shape by present life enturbulence to
such an extent that only lock valences are available for assessing. This
gives "scratchy needle" and also can lead to finding only lock valences.
Lock valences are appended to a real GPM 3-D item. They register and
even seem to stay in but are actually impossible to run as 3-D items. An
item found by an auditor and then proven incorrect by a checker was usually
a lock item. If this happens, even the new item found by the checker may
also be a lock item.
To uncover correct 3-D items it is better to run Twenty-Ten and other
preparatory processes for 75 to 200 hours before attempting to get a 3-D
package.
If the whole GPM keys out, one need only find a goal and MODIFIER to
key it in again.
Preparatory time is not wasted as the same or greater amount of time is
all used up anyway, at a loss to the pc, if a pc has a twisted GPM with
earlier lock circuits abundantly keyed in in present time. In such cases
(the majority) the preparatory time would be eaten up in keeping the pc in
session, let alone improper items.
--------------
Twenty-Ten is urgently recommended for immediate use in all HGCs.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:ph.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
11-16 January 1962
** 6201C11 SHSBC-99 How to Audit
** 6201C16 SHSBC-100 Nature of Withholds
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JANUARY 1962
Reissued on 7 June 1967
Gen Non
Remimeo
Qual Hats
Tech Hats
Level VI Students
& Above
RESPONSIBILITY AGAIN
The common denominator of the Goals Problem Mass is "No
Responsibility". This is the end product that continues any circuit or
valence.
This is a deterioration of Pan Determinism over a game into "No
responsibility" as follows:
No Previous or Current Contact - No responsibility or liability.
Pan Determinism - Full responsibility for both sides of game.
Other Determinism - No responsibility for other side of game.
Self Determinism - Full responsibility for self, no responsibility
for other side of game.
Valence (Circuit) - No responsibility for the game, for either side
of the game or for a former self.
The Goals Problem Mass is made up of past selves or "valences", each
one grouped and more or less in a group.
Therefore, the characteristic of the part (the valence) is the
characteristic of the whole, the collection of valences known as the Goals
Problem Mass.
----------------
The way a being is hung with persistent masses is the mechanism of
getting him to believe certain things are undesirable. These, he cannot
then have. He can only combat or ignore them. Either way, they are not as-
ised. Thus they persist.
Only undesirable characteristics tend to persist. Therefore the least
desirable valences or traits of valences persist.
The way not to have is to ignore or combat or withdraw from. These
three, ignoring or combatting or withdrawing sum up to no having. They also
sum up to no responsibility for such things.
Thus we can define responsibility as the concept of being able to care
for, to reach or to be. To be responsible for something one does not
actually have to care for it, or reach it or be it. One only needs to
believe or know that he has the ability to care for it, reach it or be it.
"Care for it" is a broader concept than but similar to start, change or
stop it. It includes guard it, help it, like it, be interested in it, etc.
When one has done these things, and then had failures through overts
and withholds, one cycles down through compulsive and obsessive care, reach
and be and inverts to withdraw from, combat or ignore.
Along with ignore goes forgetting or occlusion. Thus a person has occlusion
on past valences and past lives go out of sight. These return to memory
only when one has regained the concept that they can be reached, or that
one dares be them again or that one can care for them.
Herein is the cause and remedy of whole track occlusion.
---------------
There are many uses of these principles.
Sec Checking gets off the overts and withholds and opens the gates.
All chronic somatics and behavior patterns are contained in valences
and are not traceable to the current lifetime since one can reach present
life, is caring for present life and is being present life, so present life
is an area of responsibility.
All real difficulty stems from no responsibility.
However, one can use these principles even on present life with
considerable gain.
L. RON
HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sfjp.cden
Copyright � 1962, 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
17-18 January 1962
** 6201C17 SHSBC-101 Anatomy of 3D GPM
6201C18 SHSBC-102 3D Criss Cross-GPM
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 22 JANUARY 1962
Sthil
CenOCon
3D CRISS CROSS
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
The proper sequence of action in a 3D Criss Cross Assessment is as
follows:
(1) LIST LIST
However the test item of a list is determined, the essence of the first
step is to list a list. This can be the list to determine a test item or an
opposition list.
There are several LINES in 3D Criss Cross. Each line is derived from a
test item and is thereafter continued by opposition items. LINES are
lettered. Each line is an independent zig-zag of opposition items. A line
can begin by using any terminal established in old Routine 3, 3A or
original 3D. Or it can begin by a test item derived from an arbitrary list
such as Dislike, Like, Who by O/W, Dynamic Assessment, a Pre-hav level
assessment on the pc and Who or what would________, a list of withholds or
outflows.
The essence of all this is that one takes a button and pushes it to get
a list.
The List is always derived from the pc, without suggestion by the
auditor. It is the pc's list and what happens to it is up to the pc.
The auditor pushes the button and thereafter is an interested writer of
a list (while keeping the pc in session).
We do not care how short or how long this list is. The average list is
about 25 items. If less than 12, we consider the pc is ARC broke. If more
we only know that the "can't reach phenomenon" has set in. In the "can't
reach phenomenon" the pc keeps listing because he "can't quite say exactly
what it is". This is an actual sensation. The answer is to go on listing
until the pc has expressed it to his satisfaction. The phenomenon is: the
pc couldn't reach the right wording as it is too heavily charged and only
by giving more and more items is the charge bled off and then the pc, able
to reach it, can say it.
The essence is to get a list as thorough as possible without putting
the pc under a strain. Pc must remain interested. Forcing pc to list more
and more and more when he's had enough wrecks the value of 3D Criss Cross.
The list should be numbered, should be on legal (foolscap) in two
columns. Readable. You don't recopy lists.
Date the list, put the pc's name on it, and the full question the pc is
being asked to get it at the top of the page. The back side of the paper
can be used.
Additional sheets can be used. But if so, name, date and item from
which list is coming must be written at the top of second sheets.
Numbering the items has little value but it may be done.
Do not keep pc on meter while listing.
(2) RUN HAVINGNESS
You will see a pc getting dopey or drowsy while listing or nulling. It
is good auditing to run the pc's havingness process each time you notice
this. Nulling is
accurate even when the pc is anaten, but things blow much faster if
havingness is run.
After listing (or during listing if, as rarely happens, pc goes drowsy)
run some havingness.
Put pc on meter while running havingness. Test havingness process each
time used.
(3) DIFFERENTIATE THE LIST
Assessment in 3D Criss Cross is aimed at straightening up the bank as
much as obtaining items.
Lists which won't nul on repetitive assessment by elimination have not
been differentiated, or the ruds are out, or the list is incomplete in that
the wanted item isn't on it. A 3D item is heavily charged and when
mentioned discharges much of the list.
The essence of this Differentiation Step is to read each item to the pc
and have pc briefly explain how the item__________(whatever the list came
from).
This is done easily and in a friendly and interested fashion. It's the
pc's list. The answer that must be ascertained by the auditor is whether
the pc wants the item left on or taken off the list. This makes the pc
look. And it blows charge rapidly.
This step is done with the pc off the meter. The atmosphere is easy and
pleasant.
When the differentiation is in progress pc may want to add to the list.
Let the pc add what he or she likes. Put whatever is added always at the
bottom of the list.
Pc is taken off the meter for this step.
(4) NUL LIST
Put the pc on the meter. Make sure there are no session invalidations
or withholds (as different from life invalidations and withholds) and begin
nulling out the list.
This action is done in a brisk, business-like, staccato fashion. Each
item on the list is said exactly three times with only enough pause to see
if there is an instant read (about l/2 second between speaking the item
each time). The auditor then acknowledges and says, "It's in" or "It's
out." Patter would be, "Tiger, Tiger, Tiger. Thank you. It's in." Mark.
"Cat, Cat, Cat. Thank you. It's out." Mark. No interval between items
read except the split second necessary to mark.
Pc is expected to be silent during nulling. One does not consult the pc
unless the ruds go out. One answers the pc if the pc originates but then
only TR 4. One doesn't enter into discussions with the pc. If ruds go out
all will go nul. If this happens, quickly pull session invalidations or
withholds, and get going with nulling.
If the item clearly reads in any one of the three reads leave it in. If
in doubt leave it in.
Nul with sensitivity at 16.
If consecutive items which have heretofore been live vanish, suspect
session invalidations and withholds, clear them, and pick up the earliest
consecutive X where this might have happened and carry forward with nulling
as before.
Treat the list as a wheel. When you arrive at the bottom begin at once
at the top.
Use a slash mark / before the item if it is in. Use a cross if the item
goes out. If whole list goes bad and you have to re-nul it, use other side
of item (to right of item), then use a different coloured ball-point. Black
for original and second nulling. Red for third nulling. Green for fourth
nulling. A second nulling goes after the item. This code applies only to
flubbed lists as a whole-for instance whole list goes nul.
You can be left with two items in a list derived from a test item. Use
both, but only if they are clearly of opposite character, not the same
thing in another form.
At the end of nulling a test item list (first item of a line), you
should have one or two live items. If one, put it under the line you're
doing on a Line Plot. If two, put one under the line you are doing and use
the other for a new line. There are rarely two left on opposition lists.
(5) CHECK ITEM
When the item is found, check it out.
Get ruds in, run a bit of havingness.
See if item is still registering. If not get the ruds in better and do
so until item reads well.
Now read an already nulled item on the list, then read the found item,
then read a nulled item, then the found item.
Do this until you are sure all items on the list except the found item
are nul.
If found item goes out, get the ruds in.
--------------
When you have found the item and checked it out, put it under its
proper Line on the Pc's Line Plot.
The Line Plot is a sheet of white foolscap (legal) with three columns
across the top of each side, Line A, Line B, etc, with an indication of how
each line was derived (Dislike, Like, Who O/W, Dynamic Assessment, etc).
Every one of these lines is itself. It does not cross over to other
lines.
A Line is a list of found 3D items each in opposition to the last item
on that Line. The Line is a series of zig-zags, with an item at each zig
and at each zag. Any pair, a zig plus a zag, could be a 3D package that
would run. We want at least five lines. We want all the items we can get on
one line.
Inevitably, sooner or later, all lines will either coincide into a 3D
package that will only derive itself when listed or the pc goes to OT by
assessment.
There is a basic problem between every pair of items on one line in a
Line Plot. Getting the pc to describe that problem helps blow charge.
--------------
When listing, differentiating or nulling, every time the pc gets a
pain, write "PN" after the item. Every time an item makes a pc feel dizzy
or he gets winds of space, write "SEN" after that item. When you finally
come to run a package you could tell what is the pc's term (pain) and what
is the pc's oppterm (sen) by studying the lists to see what type of item
consistently gives the pc pain or sensation. Thus no error is made on
selecting the terminal or further test needed.
ERRORS IN ASSESSMENT
The whole action 1 to 5 above is called Assessment.
The first error is poor E-Meter skill.
The second error is just lousy, ARC breaky auditing.
The third error is carrying a line by oppterms too deep beyond the
other lines. Do lines one at a time in rotation. Don't keep oppterming a
line on and on and forget the other lines.
Fourth error is failing to note the ruds going out and getting off
session invalidations and withholds.
Fifth error is not getting a long enough list to include the 3D item
you're after.
--------------
You can unburden a case of hundreds of found 3D items (thousands of list
items). This makes terrific case gains, item by item found. You have never
seen such fast case gains as a well done 3D Criss Cross by assessment alone
providing the auditing is well done and these steps are followed.
--------------
Use only a Mark IV E-Meter. The others don't register well enough to
detect 3D Criss Cross reads.
--------------
Chanting a Modifier is not done in 3D Criss Cross.
--------------
Don't let anybody not a Class II even attempt to learn 3D Criss Cross.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:sf.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
23 - 25 January 1962
** 6201C23 SHSBC-103 Basics of Auditing
** 6201C24 SHSBC-104 Training-Duplication
** 6201C25 SHSBC-105 Whole Track
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JANUARY 1962
Franchise
Sthil
FLOW PROCESS
(A Class I or Class IIb Skill)
First mentioned at the June Congress 1952 at 1407 North Central,
Phoenix, Arizona (the first Scientology Congress), compulsive outflow and
obsessive withhold are alike aberrated.
With the advent of Security Checking as a process (as opposed to a
prevention of subversion) and the 1960 work on overt-withhold and
responsibility, still continuing, means of "cracking cases" now lie open to
the skilled auditor which, if expertly done, are capable of cracking the
most resistant case.
The main emphasis has been lately upon withholds. These, coming after
the confusion of an overt, of course hang up on the track and tend to stop
the pc in time. The overt is the forward motion, the withhold coming after
it is the inward motion.
While not ranking with the power of the O/W mechanism, there are,
however, some very important flows which could be released and which, if
released from the bank, could assist Security Checking. These are "laudable
outflows" and some others.
The most important flows can be listed as follows:
1. Outflow.
2. Restrained Outflow.
3. Inflow.
4. Restrained Inflow.
All ridges and masses develop around these flows.
You recognize in 1, Outflow, the overt act, as its most important item.
In 2, Restrained Outflow, you recognize all withholds. In 3, Inflow, we
have a less well studied flow and in 4, Restrained Inflow, we have a
newcomer to Scientology.
In that we have heretofore considered Inflow as Other-Determined it has
not seemed aberrative on the basis that all acts that influence a thetan
are done by himself.
But Inflow and Restrained Inflow can be Self-Determined Actions, as
well as Other-Determined and therefore merit study.
Thus all four principal flows can be Self-Determined or they can be
Other Determined. Thus all four flows can be aberrative.
In an effort to speed up Security Checking as class of processes, I am
now studying 3. Inflow and 4. Restrained Inflow.
An example of Inflow would be Eating. An example of Restrained Inflow
would be Dieting.
A general process which covers all four of these flows in the most
general form would be:
FLOW PROCESS
WHAT HAD TO BE OUTFLOWED?
WHAT HAD TO BE WITHHELD?
WHAT HAD TO BE INFLOWED?
WHAT HAD TO BE HELD OFF?
This process is a safe process for a Class IIb or an auditor in
training to run on HGC pcs or others.
It is a cyclic process and is ended with the cyclic wording in Model
Session.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:sf.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
30 January-1 February 1962
** 6201C30 SHSBC-106 In-sessionness
** 6201C31 SHSBC-107 Usages of 3DXX
** 6202C01 SHSBC-108 Flows
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 FEBRUARY 1962
Franchise
FLOWS, BASIC
A flow is a progress of energy between two points. The points may have
masses. The points are fixed and the fixedness of the points and their
opposition produce the phenomena of flows.
There are two flows, when viewed from one point.
(a) Outflow.
(b) Inflow.
These flows are modified by being accelerated and restrained.
The acceleration and restraint as applied by a thetan can be classified
by many attitudes. The basic attitudes are covered in the CDEI Scale-
Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit.
For purposes of processing these attitudes become
1. Permissible.
2. Enforced.
3. Prohibited.
4. Inhibited.
This scale inverts from outflow to inflow so that you have
PERMISSIBLE
ENFORCED
PROHIBITED
INHIBITED
INHIBITED
PROHIBITED
ENFORCED
PERMISSIBLE.
This gives us eight attitudes toward flows. We have two flows, Inflow
and Outflow and so there are then sixteen Basic Flows that affect a case
strongly. As we add brackets (another for another, self for others, etc) we
get additional flows, of course. But these sixteen are basic.
Since it is an inversion, expressed in the same way above and below
Inhibited, we can list flows for processes, rudiments, assessments, sec
checks and other purposes as eight, remembering we have an inversion that
will occur in the processing, but the lower and upper harmonic covered by
the same words.
For all general purposes, these then are the listed flows that are
actually used by the auditor in lists, commands, etc.
PERMISSIBLE OUTFLOW.
PERMISSIBLE INFLOW.
ENFORCED OUTFLOW.
ENFORCED INFLOW.
PROHIBITED OUTFLOW.
PROHIBITED INFLOW.
INHIBITED OUTFLOW.
INHIBITED INFLOW.
If you wish to "see" this better, make a point on a piece of paper and
draw the flows. Or audit them or get audited on them.
The basic aberration is withheld flow and all of these flows in a
session are aberrative only if the pc is withholding telling the auditor
about the flow.
LRH:jw.rd L. RON
HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 1 FEBRUARY 1962
All Auditors doing
3DXX
3D CRISS CROSS
ASSESSMENT TIPS
LISTING: To get a list to Differentiate and Nul rapidly, the list must be
complete.
It is assumed there will be one or more heavily charged items on a
list. Unless this charge is blown, a SCRATCHY NEEDLE, DISINTEREST IN
DIFFERENTIATION and HARD NULLING may result. The bulk of the list consists,
not of errors, but of LOCK VALENCES. When the lock valences are off the top
of the Item, the pc can state the item.
There is a phenomenon here wherein the pc "can't quite say it", "can't
reach it",
"hasn't said it right .. " All this adds to an actual feeling of
distance from the
item, or wrongness. It is a feeling. It has flows connected with it. So
long as the pc has
this feeling of not quite right, the list does not contain the actual
item. And if it does
not, then disinterest in Differentiation, hard nulling and scratchy
needle may result.
The answer to this phenomenon (call it Incompleteness) is to get more
items listed. Do not let the pc just sit and comm lag and reject wordings.
Take them all down. Every one rejected is really a lock valence, so get it
down on the list. Keep the pc giving items, "trying to phrase it right".
And put down whatever pc says.
If pc is on meter during listing, you'll see a heavy fall when the item
comes on.
Don't consider a list complete until the pc can answer an unequivocal
"Yes" to this question: "Are you sure that you've stated the correct item
yet?" or "Are you satisfied we've got all the things that would______?" or
"Have you phrased the item to your complete satisfaction?"
This is the complete list. It is better to complete a list by
questioning the pc about its completeness than by bleeding meter, as an
unskilled auditor can get a read on ARC Break and keep asking for items
each time he gets the ARC Break read caused by asking for items.
A poor list can be caused by:
1. Line being started is of no possible interest to pc. (True only
of the start of a line and for the question being used to get a
line.)
2. A dissatisfaction on the part of the pc as to having stated the
item correctly.
METHODS FOR LINES
The best ways to start a line in order of workability are:
1. Assessment of the 8 flows for the pc's chronic flow and use it
for a line "Who, what would (flow)". This can be done over and
over, getting one flow, then another, each time by assessment of
remaining flows.
2. Assessment of Pre-Hav Scale on "You" for a level and
getting items for that PH Level. (Aux PH Scale.) Listing "Who-what
would______" or appropriate wording. Then doing new PH assessment
for next line.
3. A Problems Intensive to locate chronic problems, etc, and
listing "Who- what would oppose _______".
4. Dynamic Assessment.
Finding Dynamic, listing "Who or what would represent (dynamic)".
Finding new Dynamic when first items found.
5. The direct question, "What do you really consider is wrong with
you?" or "What are you being audited to change?" (Best for new HGC
pcs on their first intensive.)
6. Assessing whole Know-to-Mystery Scale for most reaction. Then
"Who or what would_______?"
7. Arbitrary selection, dislike, like, first dynamic o/w, etc.
--------------
DIFFERENTIATION
There is no pat wound-up doll question for Differentiation. The more
the wound-up doll repetitive question approach is used the less good the pc
gets out of Differentiation.
In Differentiation of a list, we want the pc to:
1. Look.
2. Decide if item belongs or doesn't.
3. What the item named is in relation to the item the list came
from.
To do Differentiation, the pc must be in session.
Differentiation blows the lock valences. A pc with ruds out blows
nothing. Therefore, there is no substitute for ruds in and pc in session.
Auditors who interpret this on their own flow patterns, think In
session means different types of flow from pc. It's just "Willing and able
to talk to the auditor". And "Interested in own case".
An auditor who's interested in the pc is also interested in the list.
Stiff, rugged, mechanical formality and Differentiation just don't go
together.
During Differentiation remove any item from the list that the pc says
to remove, add any new item pc wants added.
Don't suggest any item to pc ever or suggest the removal of an item.
--------------
Nulling and Checking are covered earlier.
LRH:sf.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 3 FEBRUARY 1962
All Sthil Students
3DXX FLOWS ASSESSMENT
Assess the following by elimination (as in nulling).
List "Who or what would (line found)". Complete list. (Continue listing
until pc knows he's said it.) Find item by usual steps.
Do whole operation twice for two items. Both go on same line.
All items on a flow line are done by assessing flows not by oppterming
as in other lines. You can continue to repeat the same operation for item
after item:
PERMISSIBLE OUTFLOW
ENFORCED OUTFLOW
PROHIBITED OUTFLOW
INHIBITED OUTFLOW
PERMISSIBLE INFLOW
ENFORCED INFLOW
PROHIBITED INFLOW
INHIBITED INFLOW
PERMISSIBLE OUTFLOW FROM SELF
ENFORCED OUTFLOW FROM SELF
PROHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM SELF
INHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM SELF
PERMISSIBLE INFLOW ON SELF
ENFORCED INFLOW ON SELF
PROHIBITED INFLOW ON SELF
INHIBITED INFLOW ON SELF
PERMISSIBLE OUTFLOW FROM ANOTHER
ENFORCED OUTFLOW FROM ANOTHER
PROHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM ANOTHER
INHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM ANOTHER
PERMISSIBLE INFLOW ON ANOTHER
ENFORCED INFLOW ON ANOTHER
PROHIBITED INFLOW ON ANOTHER
INHIBITED INFLOW ON ANOTHER
PERMISSIBLE OUTFLOW FROM OTHERS
ENFORCED OUTFLOW FROM OTHERS
PROHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM OTHERS
INHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM OTHERS
PERMISSIBLE INFLOW TO OTHERS
ENFORCED INFLOW TO OTHERS
PROHIBITED INFLOW TO OTHERS
INHIBITED INFLOW TO OTHERS
There are thirty-two flows on a flows assessment for sec checks, or
3DXX.
LRH:sf.rd
Copyright � 1962 L. RON
HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 FEBRUARY 1962
Franchise
URGENT
MISSED WITHHOLDS
The one item Scientologists everywhere must get an even greater reality
on is MISSED WITHHOLDS and the upsets they cause.
EVERY upset with Central Orgs, Field Auditors, pcs, the lot, is
traceable to one or more MISSED WITHHOLDS.
Every ARC Breaky pc is ARC Breaky because of a Missed Withhold. Every
dissatisfied pc is dissatisfied because of MISSED WITHHOLDS.
We've got to get a flaming reality on this.
WHAT IS A MISSED WITHHOLD?
A missed withhold is not just a withhold. Please burn that into the
stone walls. A Missed Withhold is a withhold that existed, could have been
picked up and was MISSED.
The mechanics of this are given in the Saint Hill Special Briefing
Course Lecture of 1 February 1962.
The fact of it is stated in the Congress Lectures of the D.C. Congress
of December 30-31, Jan. 1, 1962.
Since that Congress even more data has accumulated. That data is large,
voluminous and overwhelming.
The person with complaints has MISSED WITHHOLDS. The person with
entheta has MISSED WITHHOLDS. You don't need policies and diplomacy to
handle these people. Policy and diplomacy will fail. You need expert
auditing skill and a British Mark IV meter and the person on the cans and
that person's MISSED WITHHOLDS.
A MISSED WITHHOLD is a withhold that existed, was tapped and was not
pulled. Hell hath no screams like a withhold scorned.
A MISSED WITHHOLD programme would not be one where an auditor pulls a
pc's withholds. A MISSED WITHHOLD programme would be where the auditor
searched for and found when and where withholds had been available but had
been MISSED.
The withhold need not have been asked for. It merely need have been
available. And if it was not pulled, thereafter you have a nattery,
combative, ARC Breaky or entheta inclined person.
THIS is the only dangerous point in auditing. This is the only thing
which makes an occasional error in the phrase, "Any auditing is better than
no auditing." That line is true with one exception. If a withhold were
available but was missed, thereafter you have a bashed-up case.
HOW TO AUDIT IT
In picking up Missed Withholds you don't ask for withholds, you ask for
missed withholds.
Sample question:
"What withhold was missed on you?"
The auditor then proceeds to find out what it was and who missed it.
And the Mark IV needle is cleaned of reaction at Sensitivity 16 on every
such question.
Gone is the excuse "She doesn't register on the meter." That's true of
old meters, not the British Mark IV.
And if the pc considers it no overt, and can't conceive of overts, you
still have "didn't know". Example: "What didn't an auditor know in an
auditing session?"
SAMPLE MISSED WITHHOLD SESSION
Ask pc if anyone has ever missed a withhold on him (her) in an auditing
session. Clean it. Get all reactions off the needle at Sensitivity 16.
Then locate first auditing session pc had. Flatten "What didn't that
auditor know?" "What didn't that auditor know about you?"
For good measure get the ruds in for that first session. In auditing an
auditor, also do the same thing for his or her first pc.
Then pick up any stuck session. Treat it exactly the same way. (If you
scan the pc through all his auditing ever from the cleaned first session to
present time, the pc will stick in a session somewhere. Treat that session
the same as the first session. You can scan again and again, finding the
stuck sessions and get the withholds off in that session and the ruds in as
above.)
Clean up all sessions you can find. And get what the auditor didn't
know, what the auditor didn't know about the pc, and for good measure, get
in the other ruds.
Cleaning up an old session will suddenly give you all the latent gain
in that session. It's worth having!
This can be extended to "What didn't the org know about you?" for those
who've had trouble with it.
And it can be extended to any life area where the pc has had trouble.
SUMMARY
If you clean up as above withholds that have been missed on any pc or
person, you will have any case flying.
This then is not just emergency data for use on flubbed intensives. It
is vital technology that can do wonders for cases.
ON ANY CASE THAT HAS BEEN AUDITED A PART OF AN INTENSIVE, BEFORE GOING
ON THE AUDITOR SHOULD SPEND SOME TIME LOCATING WITHHOLDS HE OR SHE MIGHT
HAVE MISSED ON THAT PC.
Any pc that is ending a week's auditing should be carefully checked
over for withholds that might have been missed.
Any pc that is ending his or her intensives should be most carefully
checked out for missed withholds. This makes sudden auditing gains.
Any case not up to recognizing overts will respond to "didn't know
about you" when the case doesn't respond to "withhold".
Any student should be checked weekly for missed withholds.
Any person who is giving an auditor, the field, the Organization, a
course or Scientology any trouble should be gotten hold of and checked for
missed withholds.
It is provenly true on five continents that any other meter reaches
only occasionally below the level of consciousness and the British Mark IV
reaches deeply and well. It is dangerous to audit without a meter because
then you really miss withholds. It is dangerous to audit without knowing
how to really use a meter because of missing withholds. It is dangerous to
audit with any other meter than a British Mark IV. It is SAFE to audit if
you can run a meter and if you use a British Mark IV and if you pull all
the withholds and missed withholds.
EVERY blow-up you ever had with a pc was due ENTIRELY to having missed
a withhold whether you were using a meter or not, whether you were asking
for withholds or not.
Just try it out the next time a pc gets upset and you'll see that I
speak the usual sooth.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: sf.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
2-8 February 1962
** 6202C06 SHSBC- 111 Withholds
** 6202C07 SHSBC- 112 Missed Withholds
** 6202C08 SHSBC- 109 3DXX Assessment
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 FEBRUARY 1962
sthil
CenOCon
HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS
I have finally reduced clearing withholds to a rote formula which
contains all the basic elements necessary to obtain a high case gain
without missing any withholds.
These steps now become THE way to clear a withhold or missed withhold.
AUDITOR OBJECTIVE
The auditor's object is to get the pc to look so that the pc can tell
the auditor.
The auditor's objective is not to get the pc to tell the auditor. If
the pc is in session the pc will talk to the auditor. If the pc is not in
session, the pc won't tell the auditor a withhold. I never have any trouble
getting the pc to tell me a withhold. I sometimes have trouble getting the
pc to find out about a withhold so the pc can tell it to me. If the pc will
not tell the auditor a withhold (and the pc knows it) the remedy is
rudiments. I always assume, and correctly, that if the pc knows about it
the pc will tell me. My job is to get the pc to find out so the pc has
something to tell me. The chief auditor blunder in pulling withholds stems
from the auditor assuming the pc already knows when the pc does not.
If used exactly, this system will let the pc find out and let the pc
get all the charge off of a withhold as well as tell the auditor all about
it.
Missing a withhold or not getting all of it is the sole source of ARC
break.
Get a reality on this now. All trouble you have or have ever had or
will ever have with ARC breaky pcs stems only and wholly from having
restimulated a withhold and yet having failed to pull it. The pc never
forgives this. This system steers you around the rock of missed withholds
and their bombastic consequences.
WITHHOLD SYSTEM
This system has five parts:
0. The Difficulty being handled.
1. What the withhold is.
2. When the withhold occurred.
3. All of the withhold.
4. Who should have known about it.
Numbers (2) (3) and (4) are repeated over and over, each time testing
(1) until (1) no longer reacts.
(2) (3) and (4) clear (1). (1) straightens out in part (0).
(0) is cleaned up by finding many (1)'s and (1) is straightened up by
running (2) (3) and (4) many times.
These steps are called (0) Difficulty, (1) What (2) When (3) All (4)
Who. The auditor must memorize these as What, When, All and Who. The order
is never varied. The questions are asked one after the other. None of them
are repetitive questions.
USE A MARK IV
The whole operation is done on a Mark IV. Use no other meter as other
meters may read right electronically without reading mental reactions well
enough.
Do this whole system and all questions at sensitivity 16.
THE QUESTIONS
0. The suitable question concerning the Difficulty the pc is
having. Meter reads.
1. What. "What are you withholding about ............?" (the
Difficulty) (or as given in future issues).
Meter reads. Pc answers with a w/h, large or small.
2. When. "When did that occur?" or "When did that happen?" or
"What was the time of that?"
Meter reads. Auditor can date in a generality or precisely on meter.
A generality is best at first, a precise dating on the meter is
used later in this sequence on the same w/h.
3. All. "Is that all of that?" Meter reads. Pc answers.
4. Who. "Who should have known about that?" or "Who didn't find
out about that?" Meter reads. Pc answers.
Now test (1) with the same question that got a read the first time.
(The question for (1) is never varied on the same w/h.)
If needle still reads ask (2) again, then (3), then (4), getting as
much data as possible on each. Then test (1) again. (1) is only tested,
never worked over except by using (2), (3) and (4).
Continue this rotation until (1) clears on needle and thus no longer
reacts on a test.
Treat every withhold you find (or have found) in this fashion always.
SUMMARY
You are looking at a preview of PREPARATORY TO CLEARING. "Prepclearing"
for short. Abandon all further reference to security checking or sec
checking. The task of the auditor in Prepclearing is to prepare a pc's
rudiments so that they can't go out during 3D Criss Cross.
The value of Prepclearing in case gain, is greater than any previous
Class I or Class II auditing.
We have just risen well above Security Checking in ease of auditing and
in case gains.
You will shortly have the ten Prepclearing lists which give you the (0)
and (1) questions. Meanwhile, treat every withhold you find in the above
fashion for the sake of the preclear, for your sake as an auditor and for
the sake of the good name of Scientology.
(Note: To practise with this system, take a withhold a pc has given
several times to you or you and other auditors. Treat the question that
originally got it as (1) and clean it as above in this system. You will be
amazed.)
LRH:sf.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
13 February 1962
** 6202C13 SHSBC-110 Prep Clearing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 FEBRUARY 1962
Sthil
3D CRISS CROSS ITEMS
All items found by 3D Criss Cross must be checked out for consistent
read by an Instructor before being placed on a pc's Line Plot.
The item must be checked out by the pc's auditor first as usual before
being checked out by an Instructor.
An Instructor is only to see if Item reads consistently on meter and to
instruct student appropriately if it does not. The Instructor is not to
find the correct item but direct that it be found.
Completeness of list is not to be otherwise checked or checked
separately.
LRH:sf.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 FEBRUARY 1962
CenOCon
Franchise
Co-audit Centres
CO-AUDIT & MISSED WITHHOLDS
It could be that Co-Audit falls off because of missed withholds.
Drop at once any general O/W on the Co-Audit or any effort to pull
withholds except by an Instructor.
This should improve Co-Audit attendance.
Use the old Comm process or responsibility process or any other Co-
Audit instead.
LRH:sf.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6202C14 SHSBC-117 Directing Attention
** 6202C15 SHSBC-118 Prepchecking
** 6202C20 SHSBC-113 What Is a Withhold?
** 6202C21 SHSBC-114 Use of Prepchecking
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 FEBRUARY 1962
Franchise
CenOCon
WITHHOLDS, MISSED
AND PARTIAL
I don't know exactly how to get this across to you except to ask you to
be brave, squint up your eyes and plunge.
I don't appeal to reason. Only to faith at the moment. When you have a
reality on this, nothing will shake it and you'll no longer fail cases or
fail in life. But, at the moment, it may not seem reasonable. So just try
it, do it well and day will dawn at last.
What are these natterings, upsets, ARC breaks, critical tirades, lost
PE members, ineffective motions? They are restimulated but missed or
partially missed withholds. If I could just teach you that and get you to
get a good reality on that in your own auditing, your activities would
become smooth beyond belief.
----------------
It is true that ARC breaks, present time problems and withholds all
keep a session from occurring. And we must watch them and clear them.
But behind all these is another button, applicable to each, which
resolves each one. And that button is the restimulated but missed or
partially missed withhold.
----------------
Life itself has imposed this button on us. It did not come into being
with security checking.
If you know about people or are supposed to know about people, then
these people expect, unreasonably, that you know them through and through.
Real knowledge to the average person is only this: a knowledge of his
or her withholds! That, horribly enough, is the high tide of knowledge for
the man in the street. If you know his withholds, if you know his crimes
and acts, then you are smart. If you know his future you are moderately
wise. And so we are persuaded towards mind reading and fortune telling.
All wisdom has this trap for those who would be wise.
Egocentric man believes all wisdom is wound up in knowing his
misdemeanors.
IF any wise man represents himself as wise and fails to discover what a
person has done, that person goes into an antagonism or other misemotion
toward the wise man. So they hang those who restimulate and yet who do not
find out about their withholds.
This is an incredible piece of craziness. But it is observably true.
This is the WILD ANIMAL REACTION that makes Man a cousin to the beasts.
A good auditor can understand this. A bad one will stay afraid of it and
won't use it.
----------------
The end rudiment for withholds for any session should be worded, "Have
I missed a withhold on you?"
----------------
Any ARC broke pc should be asked, "What withhold have I missed on you?"
Or, "What have I failed to find out about you?" Or, "What should I have
known about you?"
----------------
An auditor who sec checks but cannot read a meter is dangerous because
he or she will miss withholds and the pc may become very upset.
----------------
Use this as a stable datum: If the person is upset, somebody failed to
find out what that person was sure they would find out.
----------------
A missed withhold is a should have known.
----------------
The only reason anyone has ever left Scientology is because people
failed to find out about them.
----------------
This is valuable data. Get a reality on it.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :sf.cden
Copyright �1962
L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
22-27 February 1962
** 6202C22 SHSBC-119 Prepclearing and Rudiments
** 6202C27 SHSBC-115 Prepchecking
** 6202C27 SHSBC-116 Auditor's Code
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1962
Franchise
PREPCHECKING
(A Class II Skill)
A new way of cleaning up a case in order to run Routine 3D Criss Cross
has suddenly emerged as more powerful in obtaining case gains than any
previous process in Scientology.
I developed Prepchecking in order to get around an auditor's difficulty
in "varying the question" in pulling withholds. Auditors had a hard time
doing this, hence Prepchecking.
But Prepchecking became quickly more important than a "rote procedure
for Sec Checking". The potentiality in really cleaning up a case's
withholds is Mest Clear! If, of course, done by Prepchecking.
Any goal Freud ever had is easily achieved by Prepchecking in a
relatively few hours if done by a thoroughly trained Class IV auditor.
Goals Freud never dreamed of rise beyond that point.
In Prepchecking one uses the Withhold System, HCO Bulletin of February
12, 1962. But Prepchecking has exact targets and exact procedure.
In Prepchecking one uses the rudiment questions one at a time as the
body of Model Session. Havingness, however, is taken up last as a Prepcheck
question.
----------------
The target of a Prepcheck question is a chain of withholds.
A withhold chain behaves exactly like any chain. The bottom of the
chain is the basic. The withholds on the chain will stay partially alive,
even when covered, until the basic (first) withhold on the chain is fully
recovered. Then the entire chain goes nul.
The definition of a Chain is: A series of incidents of similar nature
or similar subject matter. (See Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental
Health.)
The first incident of any chain is fully or partially unknown to the
person.
----------------
THE MECHANICS OF PREPCHECKING
One uses the whole subject to be cleared as the zero question. Sub zero
questions are marked 0A.
Each 0A has a Number One question which is taken from a withhold given
on asking the 0A question.
The Number One question is worked with the When All Who of the Withhold
question until it either disappears or obviously won't clear easily. Many
withholds may be given relating to Number One. If it doesn't clear, one
steers earlier by asking Number 1A, text taken from the withholds given in
Number One. If 1A's What question doesn't clear on the meter after several
withholds and When All Who is used liberally on each, one asks Question
Number 1B.
Continuing What questions are asked and worked with the Withhold
System, until the earliest incident of the chain is found and cleaned up.
This should clear the whole chain.
One then reworks all the previous What questions on the Zero A Chain and
leaves Zero A when all the previous Whats are clear.
One can clean some of the What questions, find a new branch and ask
more What questions.
----------------
ADMINISTRATION
The auditor writes down only what the auditor says (the Zero and What
questions) plus any cognitions of the pc he cares to write.
He doesn't do a steno record of what the pc says, only the Zeros and Whats
the auditor asks.
----------------
THE MAGIC PHRASE
The magic question is "Is there any incident like that earlier?" Or any
version of it.
The pc's attention tends to stick near present time.
The auditor must press the pc gradually back down the Chain to basic,
cleaning up what he can as he goes, realizing, if the Chain is long and
hot, that it won't clean until basic is reached.
The pc, on a charged chain, cannot go earlier until charge is moved off
it by using the withhold system on each withhold the pc gives, (When All
Who, test What. If What still charged on meter, another When All Who).
Basic is sometimes wholly unknown to pc, sometimes known only as a
picture.
Unknown parts exist throughout the chain.
----------------
Sample:
0. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?
0A. Have you ever done anything to an organization? (Zero A found by
Dynamic Assessment.)
1. What about being jealous of a leader?
(1. Question found from a withhold given by pc in response to the
Zero A being asked, "I was jealous of my lodge president." This is
enlarged at once by auditor to be more general.)
Several withholds come off, all about leaders, each withhold well
worked by the When All Who of the withhold system.
Then the 1 is still alive but pc gives a withhold about stealing money
from an organization. This is a new type of withhold, but is similar on the
chain as it's still about organizations.
1A. What about stealing money from an organization? (Question 1A
derived by pc's given withhold.)
This 1A is worked by the Withhold System until pc gives a withhold
still on organizations but having to do with wrecking a car belonging to a
company.
1B. What about damaging organization property? Etc. Etc.
When the first overt is found and fully revealed by the When All Who of
the Withhold System (maybe 1F) then 1F will clear fully as a What question.
One then reworks the 1E, 1D, 1C, 1B, 1A and one. The auditor may clean 1E,
1D and find a new
series on the same chain, giving him a new 1E and 1D after which all Whats
including the Number One will go clean if worked a bit more. This up and
down may happen more than once. This ends the chain labelled in Zero A as
Organizations, providing Zero A is now nul.
----------------
CONTROL PC'S ATTENTION
Work only one subject at a time. Keep pc on the subject of the chain.
Try not to start new chains when old Zero A's exist uncleared.
Start new Zero A's only when an old Zero A is cleared fully.
----------------
The pc is doing well only when you have TA action. Complete chains
started always but choose those that will give TA action during
Prepchecking.
----------------
DON'T USE O/W
Use no version of withholds to clean up rudiments for a Prepcheck
session. You'll find yourself steered off yesterday's Zero A. Use only old
non O/W processes to clean rudiments in a Prepcheck session. For withhold
rud, add "Since last session".
----------------
HOW TO DERIVE ZEROS
The modern Model Session Rudiments are the Zeros in all cases.
----------------
HOW TO DERIVE ZERO A's
Derive Zero A's as follows:
For "Are you willing, etc" do a Dynamic Assessment on pc and use its
results. When this is cleared, do another Dynamic Assessment. Etc. Finally
pc will talk to auditor about anything.
----------------
For Withhold rudiment, use the Joburg and (on a Scientologist) Form 6A
as 0A questions.
----------------
For Present Time Problem use the whole of the Problems Intensive HCO
Bulletin of November 9, 1961.
----------------
For Half Truth use "Have you ever told a half truth?"
For Untruth, use "Have you ever told a lie?"
For Impress Anyone use "Have you ever tried to impress anyone?"
For Damage use "Have you ever damaged anyone?"
----------------
For Meter, use itself.
For Withholds, use "What withhold have you only partially revealed?"
----------------
For Goals use "Have you ever set impossible goals for anyone?"
For Gains, use "Have you ever propitiated anyone?"
For Orders and Commands, use "Have you ever made anyone obey?"
----------------
The purpose of Prepchecking is to set up a pc's rudiments so they will
stay in during further clearing of the bank.
----------------
If a pc goes back track and out of this lifetime, let him or her go
back track using the same system. Don't persuade pc to go back track.
----------------
Asking the What question is the most skilled action of Prepcheck. The
rule is as follows:
The What question must ask about the part of the withhold most
dangerous to the pc's survival, and must not be too broad to miss the chain
or too narrow to get only that one withhold. The supposition is that the pc
has done similar things; the What question must also be capable of getting
these.
There is only one exception to converting the pc's withhold to a What
question directly.
If the pc does one of four things, the auditor asks a What question
directly relating to the subject mentioned by the pc.
These four things are:
Pc gives Somebody else's withhold, gives a MOTIVATOR, gives a CRITICISM
of someone or an EXPLANATION, then Auditor gives a What question, in each
case, as follows: "What have you done to (subject mentioned by pc)?"
----------------
Learning to Prepcheck is like learning to ride a bicycle. All of a
sudden you can ride it.
Prepchecking gives high pc gains when done well, higher than any
previous process.
----------------
The auditor expects the pc to talk to him. The auditor does not prevent
the pc from giving up withholds. Pcs, unlike in Sec Checking, talk glibly
and easily while being Prepchecked.
----------------
The only middle ruds you use are (frequently) "Have I missed a withhold
on you?" and the half truth, etc, end rud question.
Use "Have I missed a withhold on you?" in the end rudiments rather than
"Are you withholding anything?" while Prepchecking.
----------------
There are some tapes extant on Prepcheck Sessions I have given.
Good hunting.
LRH:sf cden
Copyright � 1962 L RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B is corrected by HCO B 24 June 1962, Prepchecking, page 88.]
** 6203C01 SHSBC- 120 Model Session I
** 6203C01 SHSBC-121 Model Session II.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MARCH 1962
Franchise
Sthil
CenOCon
THE BAD "AUDITOR"
It is time we spent time on improving auditing skill.
We have the technology. We can make clears and OTs with it as you will
find out. Our only remaining problem is getting it applied skillfully.
This is why I started the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. The
extremely high calibre of auditor we are turning out is causing gasps of
amazement whenever these fine graduates return into an area. We are not
trying for cases at Saint Hill. I can always make clears. We are trying for
skilled auditors. But we are getting there on cases, too, faster than
anywhere else on the average.
This training has been almost a year in progress. I have learned much
about training that is of great benefit to all of us, without at the same
time skimping the training of the Saint Hill student.
Looking over incoming students I find we have, roughly, two general
categories of auditor, with many shades of grey between:
1. The natural auditor.
2. The dangerous auditor.
The natural auditor ties right into it and does a workmanlike job. He
or she gets lots of bulletin and tape passes in ratio to flunks, absorbs
data well and gets it into practice, does a passable job on a pc even at
the start of training, and improves casewise rapidly under the skilled
training and auditing at Saint Hill. This is true of the clears and
releases that come on course as well as those who have had much less case
gains prior to this training. These, the natural auditors, make up more
than half the incoming students.
The other category we will call the "dangerous auditor". The severe
examples of this category make up about 20% of the incoming students and
are very detectable. In shades of grey the other 30% are also, at the
start, to be placed in the category of "dangerous auditor unless tightly
supervised".
At Saint Hill, with few exceptions, we only get the cream of auditors
and so I would say that the overall percentage across the world is probably
higher in the second category than at Saint Hill.
Thus it would seem we must cure this matter at the Academies and cure
it broadly throughout Scientology, and if we do, our dissemination, just on
this effort alone, should leap several thousand percent. If all pcs audited
everywhere were expertly audited, well, think of what that would do. To
accomplish this we need only move the dangerous auditor out of the danger
class.
I have found out what makes a pc suffer a deterioration of profile
(missed withholds) and have found out why a dangerous auditor is dangerous.
Therefore, there are no barriers to our handling the matter as even the
dangerous auditor, oddly enough, wants to be a good auditor but doesn't
quite know how. Now we can fix it up.
The difference between a natural auditor and a dangerous auditor is not
case level as we have supposed, but a type of case.
The earliest observation on this came in ACCs. About 1% of the students
(say two students every ACC) could be counted on to be miserable if his or
her pc made gains and happy if the pc was collapsing. This was an
observation. What were these students trying to do? What did they think
they should accomplish in a session? They are an extreme case of "dangerous
auditor".
This is how to detect a "dangerous auditor" in any shade of grey:
Any auditor who (a) cannot achieve results on a pc, (b) who finds items
slowly or not at all, (c) who gets low marks on tape tests, (d) who has a
high flunk-to-pass ratio on taking tests for classification, (e) whose own
case moves slowly, (f) who does not respond well to a "think" process, (g)
who chops a pc's comm, (h) who prevents a pc from executing an auditing
command, (i) who obsessively changes processes before one is flat, (j) who
apologizes or explains why he or she got no results session after session,
(k) who tries to make pcs guilty, (I) who blames Scientology for not
working, (m) whose pcs are always ARC breaking, or (n) who will no longer
audit at all, is suffering not from withholds but from the reverse of the
withhold flow, "Afraid to find out".
The person with withholds is afraid he or she will be found out. The
other type of case may have withholds but the dominant block is exactly the
reverse. Instead of being afraid he or she will be found out, the opposite
type of case is afraid to find out or afraid of what he or she may find
out. Thus it is a type of case that makes a dangerous auditor. He or she is
afraid of finding out something from the pc. Probably this case is the more
usual in society, particularly those who never wish to audit.
A person with withholds is afraid to be found out. Such a person has
auditing difficulties as an auditor, of course, because of restraint on
their own comm line. These difficulties sum up to an inability to speak
during a session, going silent on the pc, failures to ask how or what the
pc is doing. But this is not the dangerous auditor. The only dangerous
thing an auditor can do is miss withholds and refuse to permit the pc to
execute auditing commands. This alone will spin a pc.
The dangerous auditor is not afraid to be found out (for who is
questioning him or her while he or she is auditing?). The dangerous auditor
is the auditor who is afraid to find out, afraid to be startled, afraid to
discover something, afraid of what they will discover. This phobia prevents
the "auditor" from flattening anything. This makes missed withholds a
certainty. And only missed withholds create ARC breaks.
All cases, of course, are somewhat leery of finding things out and so
any old-time auditor could have his quota of ARC breaks on his or her pcs.
But the dangerous auditor is neurotic on the subject and all his or her
auditing is oriented around the necessity to avoid data for fear of
discovering something unpleasant. As auditing is based on finding data,
such an auditor retrogresses a case rather than improves it. Such an
auditor's own case moves slowly also as they fear to discover something
unpleasant or frightening in the bank.
Today, the increased power of auditing makes this factor far more
important than it ever was before. Old processes could be done with minimal
gain but without harm by such an auditor. Today, the factor of fear-of-
discovery in an auditor makes that auditor extremely dangerous to a pc.
In Prepchecking, this becomes obvious when an auditor will not actually
clean up a chain and skids over withholds, thus "completing" the case by
leaving dozens of missed withholds and an accordingly miserable pc.
In Routine 3D Criss Cross this becomes obvious when the auditor takes
days and weeks to find an item, then finds one that won't check out. An
item every three sessions of two hours each is a low average for 3D Criss
Cross. An item a week is suspect. An item a month is obviously the average
of an auditor who will not find out and is dangerous. The auditor who uses
out-rudiments always to avoid doing 3D Criss Cross is a flagrant example of
a no-discovery-please auditor.
In the CCHs, the dangerous auditor is narrowed down to prevention of
executing the auditing command. This, indeed, is the only way an auditor
can make the CCHs fail. In any of the CCHs, the commands and drills are so
obvious that only the prevention of execution can accomplish not-finding-
out. The dangerous auditor is never satisfied the pc has executed the
command. Such an auditor can be seen to move the pc's hand on the wall
after the pc has in fact touched the wall. Or the pc is made to do a motion
over and over which is already well done. Or the pc is run only on
processes that are flat and is halted on processes that are still changing.
The pc is never permitted to reveal anything by the dangerous auditor.
And so "auditing" fails.
The remedies for the dangerous auditor, by class of process, are:
Class I-Repetitive Process, run in sequence
REVELATION PROCESS X1
What could you confront?
What would you permit another to reveal?
What might another confront?
What might another permit you to reveal?
What would you rather not confront?
What would you rather not have another reveal?
What might another hate to confront?
What might another object to your revealing?
What should be confronted?
What shouldn't anyone ever have to confront?
(Note: This process is subject to refinement and other processes on the
same subject will be released.)
Class II-Prepchecking Zero Question
Have you ever prevented another from perceiving something? (Other such
Zero Questions are possible on the theme of fear-of-discovery.)
CCHs should be used if tone arm action during any Prepchecking is less
than 3/4 of a division shift per hour.
Class III-Routine 3D Criss Cross
Find Line Items as follows:
Who or What would be afraid to find out? (then get oppterm of resulting
item)
Who or What would prevent a discovery? (then oppterm it)
Who or What would startle someone? (then oppterm it)
Who or What would be unsafe for you to reveal? (then oppterm it)
Who or What would be dangerous for another to reveal? (then oppterm it)
Note: Well run CCHs, run according to the very earliest data on them, given
again on two Saint Hill Briefing Course Tapes (R-10/6106C22SH/Spec 18,
"Running CCHs" and R-12/6106C27SH/Spec 21, "CCHs-Circuits"), benefit any
case and are not relegated to the psychotic by a long ways. The CCHs do a
remarkable job in making a good auditor for various reasons. The first CCH
(Op Pro by Dup) was invented exclusively to make good auditors. The CCHs 1
to 4 are run each one in turn,
only so long as they produce change and no longer, before going on to the
next. When is a CCH flat so that one can go on to the next CCH? When three
complete cycles of the CCH have a uniform comm lag it can be left. My
advice in straightening out or improving any auditor is to first flatten
the CCHs 1 to 4, and then flattening all in one run Op Pro by Dup. This
would be regardless of the length of time the auditor had been auditing in
Dianetics and Scientology. Then I would do the Class II and Class III
processes above, preferably doing the Class III items first, then the Class
II so it could go whole track, or doing the Class II, then the Class III
and then the Class II again.
----------------
SUMMARY
Following out any part of this programme in any organization, in the
field and on any training course will vastly improve the results of
auditing and enormously diminish auditing failures.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jw.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B is added to by HCO B 15 March 1962, Suppressors, which is on
the following page.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
19-20 March 1962
** 6203C19 SHSBC-122 The Bad "Auditor"
** 6203C19 SHSBC-123 Mechanics of Suppression
** 6203C20 SH TVD-1 3DXX Assessment
** 6203C20 SH TVD-2 3DXX Assessment (cont.)
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MARCH AD 12
Franchise
Sthil
CenOCon
ADD HCO BULLETIN 8 March 1962
THE BAD "AUDITOR "
SUPPRESSORS
The discovery of the "other side of withholds" type of case, the person
who is afraid to find out, brings to view the reason behind all slow gain
cases.
My first release was directed at auditing because good auditing is, of
course, my primary concern at the moment.
But let us not overlook the importance of this latest discovery. For
here is our roughest case to audit, as well as our roughest auditor.
Every case has a little of "afraid to find out". So you may have taken
HCO Bulletin of March 8, 1962, more personally than you should have. BUT
everyone's auditing can be improved, even mine, and adding a full
willingness to find out to one's other auditing qualities will certainly
improve one's auditing ability. Here probably is the only real case
difference I have had. My own "afraid to find out" is minimal and so I had
no reality on it as a broadly held difficulty. Where I ran into it was in
trying to account for differences amongst students and in auditors who
sought to audit me. Some could, some couldn't. And this was odd because my
ability to as-is bank is great, therefore I should be easy to audit. But
some could audit me and some couldn't. Two different auditors found me
reacting as two different pcs. Therefore there must have been another
factor. It was my study of this and my effort to understand "bad auditing"
on myself as a pc that gave us the primary lead in. I made a very careful
analysis of what the auditor was doing who couldn't or wouldn't audit me,
an easy pc. The answer, after many tries and much study of students,
finally came down, crash, to the "afraid to find out" phenomena. Thus my
first paper on this (HCO Bulletin of March 8, 1962) enters the problem as a
problem of auditing skill.
THE ROUGH PC
The characteristic of the rough pc is not a pc's tendency to ARC Break
and scream, as we have tended to believe, but something much more subtle.
The first observation of this must be credited to John Sanborn,
Phoenix, 1954, who remarked to me in an auditor's conference, "Well, I
don't know. I don't think this pc is getting on (the one he was staff
auditing). I keep waiting for him to say, 'Well, what do you know!' or
'Gosh!' or something like that and he just grinds on and on. I guess you'd
call it 'No cognition' or something." John, with his slow, funny drawl, had
put his finger on something hard.
The pc who makes no gain is the pc who will not as-is. Who will not
confront. Who can be audited forever without cogniting on anything.
The fulminating or dramatizing pc may or may not be a tough pc. The
animal psychologist has made this error. The agitated person is always to
blame, never the quiet one. But the quiet one is quite often the much
rougher case.
The person whose "thought has no effect on his or her bank" has been
remarked on by me for years. And now we have that person. This person is so
afraid to find out that he or she will not permit anything to appear and
therefore nothing will as-is? therefore, no cognition!
The grind case, the audit forever case, is an afraid to find out case.
We need a new word. We have withholds, meaning an unwillingness to
disclose past action. We should probably call the opposite of a withhold, a
"suppressor". A "suppressor" would be the impulse to forbid revelation in
another. This of course, being an overt, reacts on one's own case as an
impulse to keep oneself from finding out anything from the bank, and of
course suppresses as well the release of one's own withholds, so it is more
fundamental than a withhold. A "suppressor" is often considered "social
conduct" in so far as one prevents things from being revealed which might
embarrass or frighten others.
In all cases a suppressor leads to suppression of memory and
environment. It is suppression that is mainly overcome when you run
havingness on a pc. The pc is willing to let things appear in the room (or
to some degree becomes less unwilling to perceive them). The one-command
insanity eradicator, "Look around here and find something that is really
real to you" (that sometimes made an insane person sane on one command),
brought the person to discharge all danger from one item and let it reveal
itself. Now, for any case, the finding of the suppressor mechanism again
opens wider doors for havingness processes. "Look around here and find
something you would permit to appear" would be a basic havingness process
using the suppressor mechanism.
Thus we have a new, broad tool, even more important in half the cases
than withholds.
Half the cases will run most rapidly on withholds, the other half most
rapidly on suppressors. All cases will run somewhat on withholds and
somewhat on suppressors, for all cases have both withholds and suppressors.
Withholds have been known about since the year one, suppressors have
been wholly missing as a pat mechanism. Thus we are on very new and virgin
search ground.
----------------
Additionally adding to the data in HCO Bulletin of March 8, 1962,
another symptom of a dangerous auditor would be (o) one who Qs and As with
a pc and never faces up to the basic question asked but slides off of it as
the pc avoids it and also avoids it as an auditor. All dangerous Q and A is
that action of the auditor which corresponds to the pc's avoidance of a hot
subject or item. If the pc seeks to avoid by sliding off, the auditor, in
his questions, also slides off. Also, the auditor invites the pc to avoid
by asking irrelevant questions that lead the pc off a hot subject.
Also add (p) who fails to direct the pc's attention. The pc wants to
cut and run, the auditor lets the pc run.
Also add (q) who lets the pc end processes or sessions on the pc's own
volition.
Also add (r) who will only run processes chosen by the pc.
Also add (s) who gets no somatics during processing.
Also add (t) who is a Black Five.
The common denominator of the dangerous auditor is "action which will
forestall the revelation of any data".
Because the auditor is terrified of finding out anything, the whole
concentration of the auditor is occupied with the suppression of anything a
process may reveal.
Some auditors suppress only one type of person or case and audit others
passably. Husbands as auditors tend more to fear what their wives may
reveal to them and wives as auditors tend to suppress more what their
husbands may reveal to them. Thus husband-wife teams would be more unlucky
than other types of auditing teams as
a general rule, but this is not invariable and is now curable if they
exclusively run on each other only suppression type processes.
Add Class I
REVELATION PROCESS X2
What wouldn't you want another to present?
What wouldn't another want you to present?
What have you presented?
What has another presented?
Class II-Added Zero Question:
Have you ever suppressed anything?
Class III-Add Lines:
Who or What would suppress an identity? (oppterm it)
Who or What would make knowledge scarce? (oppterm it)
Who or What would not want a past? (oppterm it)
Who or What would be unconfrontable? (oppterm it)
Who or What would prevent others (another) from winning? (oppterm
it)
Who or What should be disregarded when you're getting something
done?
(oppterm it)
Who or What would make another realize he or she hadn't won?
(oppterm it)
(In choosing which one of the above to oppterm first, read each one of
all such Class III Lines [including those of HCO Bulletin of March 8] once
each to the pc watching the meter for the largest reaction. Then take that
one first. Do this each time with remaining Lines. One does the same thing
[an assessment of sorts] on Line Plot Items when found to discover the next
one to oppterm.)
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jw.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MARCH 1962
Franchise
PREPCHECKING DATA
WHEN TO DO A WHAT
Prepchecking can be defeated by failing to ask a What question at the
proper time.
If you ask the What question when a pc gives you a vague generality,
you will find yourself doing a "shallow draft" Prepcheck that never gets
any meat.
When you obtain a generality early on after the Zero question, you make
it a Zero A.
You never ask a What question until you have managed to get a single
specific overt.
Only when the pc has been steered into stating an actual overt, do you
ask the What question and write it down.
And when the pc gives you a specific overt, you frame the What question
so as to take in the whole possible chain of similar overts. A chain is a
repetition of similar acts.
Example:
Wrong: Pc says, "I used to disconcert my mother." Auditor says and
writes down, "What about disconcerting your mother?" as his What question.
Of course the prepchecking goes lightly nowhere.
Right: Pc says he used to disconcert his mother. Auditor steers pc into
a specific time. Pc finally says, "I jumped out on her and startled her one
time and she dropped a tray of glasses."
Now the auditor has a specific overt. The chain will be startling his
mother. The What question, then, which is written down and asked is, "What
about startling your mother?" and the first incident the pc gave is worked
over. If the needle doesn't fall when this What is asked, then the auditor
asks for an earlier time he startled his mother. This What question is
worked on different startlings of mother and only on startlings of mother
until the needle is cleaned on that What question.
Then one asks the Zero A, "Have you ever disconcerted your mother?" The
needle reacts. The auditor fishes around for a specific other incident.
Finally gets, "I used to lie to her." Now it would be an awful goof to give
the What question on this one, as the pc has given no specific incident.
But the needle reacted, so the auditor writes a Zero B, "Have you ever lied
to your mother?" and then nags away at the pc until a specific time is
recovered: "I told her I was going out with boys when in actuality, I dated
a girl she hated." Now write the What question: "What about lying to your
mother about dating girls?" and work over that one time the pc gave with
the When A11 etc. If the needle reacts on the What question after a couple
times over the When A11 etc, ask for an earlier time. Get another specific
incident, work it over.
Test the What question, work over exact withholds and find more
incidents earlier until that What question is clean on the needle. Then ask
the Zero B. If it's clean write nul after it. If not find a new What on
that subject as above.
When the Zero B is clean, ask the Zero A. If that's clean, write nul
after it. If not, find a new chain. And that's the way it goes.
Working only generalities and never specific incidents wrecks all value of
prepchecking and upsets the pc with missed withholds.
If the pc does come up with a withhold not on the chain (example: while
doing above What, pc says, "I also lied to my father") write notation
("Lied to father") on margin for later reference and leave it alone. Don't
pursue it. Work only one chain at a time.
Q and A is a serious thing in Prepchecking.
----------------
Moving Tone Arm
If you fail to get tone arm action while working a chain of overts on a
pc (less than .25 division per 20 minutes) you are working a profitless
chain. Clean it up a bit and leave it. Your Zero A is probably quite wrong.
Be sure and ask, "Have I missed a withhold on you?" and clean it before so
abandoning a chain.
You want TA motion in Prepchecking. Find Zero and Zero A questions that
do move the TA.
It is a violation of the Auditor's Code to continue to audit processes
that do not produce change. Or to stop processes that do produce change.
This applies to chains and subjects selected for Prepchecking.
----------------
Social Mores
The criteria of what is a hot withhold depends utterly on the pc's idea
of What Is An Overt. It does not depend on what the auditor thinks an overt
is.
The pc is stuck in various valences in the Goals Problems Mass. Each
has its own Social Mores. They may m t agree with or apply to current life
morality at all. This can cause trouble in Prepchecking.
Example: Pc is stuck in the valence of a Temple Priestess. Auditor is a
bit fuddy on being a school principal. Auditor keeps looking for sexual
misconduct with small boys. It isn't on pc's case. Result, no TA action.
Finally almost by accident, knowing nothing about the pc's GPM yet, the
auditor disgustedly asks, "Have you ever failed to seduce anybody?" and
bang! That's a Zero A to end all Zero A's and the pc gives up "overt" after
"overt", failed to seduce her husband's friend, her sister's boyfriend, her
kindergarten teacher, etc, etc, etc, with two divisions of TA motion.
"Have you ever tried to cure anyone?" is a fine Zero question for all
killer types.
Prepchecking is at its best after one knows some GPM items from doing
3D Criss Cross.
What are the mores of a Temple Priestess and how has the pc violated
them in this life?
Prepchecking is wonderful at any time but it really soars when one
knows some of the pc's terminals.
This lifetime hasn't added anything to the GPM. It's just keyed it in.
We live in quiet times.
----------------
Don't Forget "Guilty"
A fine Zero question is "making others guilty".
"Have you ever tried to make anyone guilty?" Pc says Policemen, he
guesses. Needle reacts. Auditor writes Zero A, "Have you ever tried to make
a policeman
guilty?" He fishes for an actual incident, finds the pc bawled out a
traffic officer, writes the What, "What about bawling out cops?" and we're
away.
----------------
Add Appear
In the Withhold System, add "Appear, Not Appear" after All.
The question sequence becomes for any one incident:
When?
All?
Appear?
Who?
The next time around use "Not Appear"
When?
All?
Not Appear?
Who?
The phrasing of this is, "What appeared there?" or some such wording.
And "What failed to appear?" for the next round.
This injects "Afraid to find out" into Prepchecking with great profit
and knocks the Not-Is off the withhold.
This will run a whole track incident.
----------------
Whole Track
If the pc goes back of this lifetime, let him or her go back. Now that
Appear is part of the Withhold System, it's unlikely the pc will hang up
and get stuck. But the golden rule of Prepchecking is to always work
specific incidents, work them one at a time, and go to an earlier incident
if an incident doesn't clear easily on the needle.
Two times through When, All, Appear, Who should free locks, ten times
through should clean any engram.
If the chain you're working isn't moving the TA, you're up to your neck
in red herrings. Clean "Have I missed a withhold on you?" and abandon it.
----------------
Unknown Pins Chains
There is always an unknown-to-the-pc incident or piece of incident at
the bottom of every chain. Only an unknown incident can make a chain of
incidents react on the needle.
You will always find that a chain will be sticky until the unknown
incident or piece of incident at the bottom of it is revealed. When you've
got it fully revealed, the chain will go nul. The chain will not go nul
until its basic is reached. It can be this lifetime or a former life. But
it sure is unknown to the pc. That's "Basic on a Chain".
----------------
Recurring Withholds
The pc that gives the same withhold over and over to the same or
different auditors, has an unknown incident underlying it. All is not
revealed on that Chain.
Missed Withholds
If you ask a pc if another auditor has missed a withhold on him or her and
find one, you have a profitable chain to work in many cases.
----------------
Rudiments in Prepchecking
When you are running a chain and in the next session you find rudiments
out and use any form of withhold question, the pc throws the session into a
new chain and you will find yourself unable to get back to yesterday's
session.
This utterly defeats Prepchecking. Do not let it happen. In a Prepcheck
session, when getting rudiments in, avoid any suggestion of withhold
questions. Use only processes that avoid O/W entirely. See early Model
Sessions.
Example: Pc has Present Time Problem. It won't resolve with two-way
comm. Don't ask for withholds about it or you'll ruin your control of
what's to be Prepchecked. Use Responsibility or Unknown on the problem. For
Room use Havingness. For Auditor use "Who would I have to be to audit
you?'.'
Exception: In a Prepcheck Session Ruds ask for Withholds since last
session. Ask this pointedly. "Since the last session, have you done
anything you are withholding from me?" If you get a needle reaction, ask
the same question again, very stressed. Buy only an exact answer to that
question.
If you use any version of O/W in the rudiments in a Prepcheck session
you open the door to a new chain and you'll spend the whole session on new
chains without completing yesterday's session. This results in a scrambled
case. You have lost control of the session.
----------------
Prepchecking is a precious tool.
This bulletin covers errors being made or material evidently needed for
successful Prepchecking.
I can tell you that if Prepchecking doesn't make a case fly for you,
you need training on meters and auditing. This is one process that's a doll
and if you can make it work you can do more for a case per session than any
being in history.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:phjh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
21 March-3 April 1962
** 6203C21 SHSBC-124 Prepchecking
** 6203C21 SHSBC-125 Prepchecking
** 6203C27 SHSBC-130 Prepchecking Data
** 6203C29 SHSBC-126 CCHs
** 6203C29 SHSBC-127 Q-and-A Period
** 6204C03 SHSBC-131 The Overt-Motivator Sequence
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MARCH 1962
Franchise
CCHs AGAIN
WHEN TO USE THE CCHs
We have today three major processes (and are about to get the bit of
Class IV).
These processes are:
1. The CCHs
2. Prepchecking
3. 3D Criss Cross
4. Running 3D Criss Cross Items
Into this scheme of things the CCHs loom largely. They are our foremost
"familiarization" processes that permit the pc to confront control and
duplication.
In actual fact 3D Criss Cross goes "further south" than Prepchecking.
And the CCHs go, of course, much further south than 3D Criss Cross.
The whole criteria is tone arm motion. If you do not get more than a
quarter of a division of tone arm motion in 20 minutes of Prepchecking or
3D Criss Cross, the pc probably should be run on the CCHs.
Here is a matter of no matter why there is no tone arm action, just put
the pc on CCHs. As Mary Sue has said, this is a boon to any D of P. The D
of P simply sees that the pc is getting only slight tone arm action after a
session or two and then puts the pc on CCHs with no further reasoning or
figure-figure on the case.
It does not matter why the pc gets slight tone arm action. It could be
that the auditor is running the wrong Zero questions. It could be the way
the auditor or the pc is doing or not doing. Don't try extensively to
figure out why no Tone Arm Action, just transfer the pc to the CCHs.
For how long? Until all CCHs (1 to 4) are runnable without somatics and
reasonably flat.
This way you'll get more wins, better gains.
Here is a typical case in point. A case was audited on Routine 3D, 3D
XX, Sec Checking and Prepchecking for 260 hours. In all that time one half
a tone arm division was all the change except during one series of 4
sessions when she got one tone arm division on one particular Zero
question. At the end of this time the pc had made some small gains but was
still incapable of recognizing her own overts. It would have been far
better to have run a hundred hours of the CCHs first.
On this case, and others, the only significant tone arm action was
achieved by tactile havingness (touching things), which always brought the
tone arm down one division. Tactile havingness, as you will see, is a CCH
type of process.
Thus one concludes that the CCHs (even though pcs are not metered of
course while doing CCHs) produced tone arm action while the higher level
processes did not.
Therefore, a helpful (but not final) test. If you get no real tone arm
action on Prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross listing and nulling, and you do
get tone arm action asking the pc to touch things (laying down and picking
up the cans often to check the TA position) you have a CCH pc. But this
test is not needful if you just follow the rule, "No TA action on 3D Criss
Cross or Prepchecking more than a quarter of a division every 20 minutes,
transfer the pc to CCHs."
Here is another test, which has sense but again is not vital to make. If
the pc gets tone arm motion just discussing being audited, and relatively
little in Prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross, it's timesaving to transfer the
case to the CCHs.
If you notice lots of TA action on Havingness and little tone arm
action on Prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross, you have a clear indication that
CCHs will be all that will move the case.
If you notice lots of TA action on trying to clear the auditor in the
rudiments it's probably best to use the CCHs. Now if only rudiments type
Zero questions (beginning and end rudiments) move the TA in Prepchecking,
but other things don't, it's a CCH case.
If the pc, for whatever reason, doesn't get tone arm action from any
verbal process, old-time, or current, don't investigate the reason. It may
lie with the auditor or pc. Just change over to the CCHs.
If you like, you can use a meter to handle beginning and end rudiments
on a pc you're running on the CCHs. It would probably help and make things
run faster. This is not mandatory, but knowing what we do about withholds,
it might be safer.
Remember, the CCHs must be run right. The two bulletins best covering
them are:
HCO Bulletin of November 2, 1961, "Training CCHs" HCO Bulletin of June
23, 1961, "Running CCHs"
Even if you think you know all about the CCHs, read these two bulletins
again before you attempt them.
The CCHs expired in value after 1957 because the original method of
running them was altered. There's only one way to run the CCHs and you have
both the above bulletins to tell you how. They're the original CCHs and the
original method of running them.
This then is the third bulletin in this sequence. It tells you when to
run the CCHs. HCO Bulletin of November 2, 1961, tells you how each one is
run. HCO Bulletin of June 23, 1961, tells you how they're run as a series
on a pc. And now we can state here When.
A lot of stuff about CCHs being only for psychos has not helped their
use. We now find that cases a long way from psycho won't move easily unless
the CCHs are used first.
"A lot of Tone Arm Motion" is defined as at least three-quarters of a
division motion on the Tone Arm dial in any 20 minutes of auditing.
"Not much Tone Arm Motion" is defined as one-quarter of a division of
Tone Arm Motion in 20 minutes of auditing.
Judgment must be used in this, of course. You can have a pc who usually
gets good Tone Arm Motion but, for a session, gets little. That doesn't
mean jump to the CCHs. If the pc is routinely subject to Not Much Tone Arm
Motion, you must switch to the CCHs.
Ds of P, Staff Auditors, and Field Auditors, watch the auditor's
reports and look back through the pc's file. You'll find a lot of
enlightenment on why the pc was "tough". No Tone Arm Motion.
I hope this sorts it out for you. It has for me.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:ph.rd
Copyright � 1962 [HCO B 2 Nov. 61, Training CCHs, was not by LRH and is not
by L. Ron Hubbard in these volumes. See page 310 for the revision of
HCO B
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2 Nov. 61.]
** 6204C05 SHSBC-129 As-isness, People Who Can and Can't As-is
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1962
Franchise
CCHs
AUDITING ATTITUDE
This is an important bulletin. If you understand it you will get
results on hitherto unmoving cases and faster results (1 hour as effective
as a former 25) with the CCHs.
Here is what happened to the CCHs and which will continue to happen to
them to damage their value:
The CCHs in their most workable form were finalized in London by me in
April 1957. That was their high tide of workability for the next five
years. After that date, difficulties discovered in teaching them to
auditors added extraordinary solutions to the CCHs (not by me) which cut
them to about one twenty-fifth of their original auditing value. Pcs
thereafter had increasing difficulty in doing them and the gain lessened.
How far were the CCHs removed from original CCH auditing? Well, the
other night on TV I gave a demonstration of the proper original CCHs which
produce the gains on pcs. And more than twelve old-time auditors (the
lowest graded ones out of 36) thought they were watching a demonstration of
entirely foreign processes.
Although these auditors had been "well trained" on the CCHs (but not by
me) they did not see any similarity between how they did them and how they
saw me do them. Two or three students and two instructors thought they were
being done wrong. Even the higher ranking students were startled. They had
never seen CCHs like this.
Yet, the pc was very happy, came way up tone, lost a bad before-session
somatic and within 48 hours had a complete change in a chronic physical
problem, all in 11/2 hours of proper original CCHs.
The students and instructors "knew they weren't watching the correct
CCHs" because there was no antagonism to the pc, because the Tone 40 was
not shouted, because there was no endurance marathon in progress. There was
just quiet, positive auditing with the pc in good, happy 2-way
communication with the auditor and the auditor letting the pc win.
In the student auditing of the next two days, some shadow of the
demonstration's attitude was used and the cases audited gained much faster
than before. Yet at least two or three still feel that this is far too easy
to be the CCHs.
In five years, the CCHs, not closely supervised by me, but altered in
training, had become completely unrecognizable (and almost resultless).
Why?
Because the CCHs were confused with Op Pro by Dup which was for
auditors. Because the CCHs became an arduous ritual, not a way to audit the
pc in front of you. The CCHs became a method of auditing without
communicating, of running off strings of drills without being there. And
the CCHs are so good that even when done wrong or even viciously they
produced some slight gain. The CCHs shade from bright white to dark grey in
results, never to black.
Having been perverted in training to a system to make auditors audit
them, they became something that had nothing to do with the pc.
What these students saw demonstrated (and which upset them terribly)
was this:
The auditor sat down, chatted a bit about the coming session with the pc,
explained in general what he was about to do. The session was started. The
auditor explained the CCH 1 drill in particular and then began on it. The
pc had a bit of embarrassment come off. The auditor took the physical
reaction as an origination by the pc and queried it. The routine CCH 1
drill went on and was shortly proved flat by three equal responses. The
auditor went to CCH 2. He explained the drill and started it. This proved
to be flat. The pc did the drill three times without comm change. The
auditor explained and went to CCH 3. This also proved flat and after a
three times test, the auditor came off it, explained CCH 4, and went to CCH
4. This proved unflat and was gradually flattened to three equally timed
correct responses by the pc on a motion the pc could not at first do. About
50 minutes had elapsed so the auditor gave a ten minute break. After the
break the auditor went back to CCH 1, found it flat, went to CCH 2 and
found the pc jumping the command and, by putting short waits of different
lengths before giving commands, knocked out the automaticity. The auditor
went on to CCH 3, found it flat, and then to CCH 4 which was found unflat
and was accordingly flattened. The auditor then discussed end ruds in a
general way, got a summary of gains and ended the session.
All commands and actions were Tone 40 (which is not "antagonism" or
"challenge"). But the pc was kept in two-way comm between full cycles of
the drill by the auditor. Taking up each new physical change manifested as
though it were an origin by the pc and querying it and getting the pc to
give the pc's reaction to it, this two-way comm was not Tone 40. Auditor
and pc were serious about the drills. There was no relaxation of precision.
But both auditor and pc were relaxed and happy about the whole thing. And
the pc wound up walking on air.
These were the CCHs properly done. With high gain results.
The viewers saw no watchdog snarling, no grim, grim PURPOSE, no
antagonistic suspicion, no pc going out of session, no mauling, no drill-
sergeant bawling and KNEW these couldn't be the CCHs. There was good
auditor-pc relationship (better than in formal sessions) and good two-way
comm throughout, so the viewers KNEW these weren't proper CCHs.
Well, I don't know what these gruelling blood baths are they're calling
"the CCHs". I did them the way they were done in April 1957 and got April
1957 fast results. And the processes aren't even recognized !
So somewhere in each year from April 1957 to April 1962 and somewhere
in each place they're done, additives and injunctions and "now I'm supposed
to's" have grown up around these precise but easy, pleasant processes that
have created an unworkable monster that is called "the CCHs" but which
definitely isn't.
Not seeing the weird perversions but seeing the slow graph responses,
the vast hours being burned up, I began to abandon recommending the CCHs
after 1959 as too long in others' hands. I didn't realize how complicated
and how grim it had all become.
Well, the real CCHs done right, done the way they're described here,
are a fast gain route, easy on auditor and pc, that goes all the way south.
Take a reread of the June and November bulletins of last year (forget
the 20 minute test, 3 times equally done are enough to see a CCH is flat)
and, not forgetting your Tone 40 and precision, laying aside the grim
withdrawn militant auditor attitude, try to do them as pleasantly as you
find them described in the above outlined session, and be amazed at the
progress the pc will make.
The CCHs easy on auditor and pc? Ah, they'd observed a lot of CCHs and
never any that were easy on auditor or pc. Everybody came to know it was a
bullying, smashing, arduous mess, a fight in fact. The only trouble was,
the gains vanished when the ARC ran out.
Today, put any pc on the original CCHs done as above until they're
flat, then go to 3D Criss Cross and the pc will fly.
Surely you don't have to look and sound so hungry, disinterested and mean
when you audit the CCHs. You want to clear this pc, not make him or her
into a shaking wreck. The CCHs are easily done (when they're done right).
They'll get lost again, too, unless you remember they can get lost.
I believe Upper Indoc should be canceled in Academies and extra time
put on just the CCHs as it is the Upper Indoc attitude carried over that
makes the CCHs grim.
SUMMARY
The PURPOSE of the CCHs is to bring the pc through incidents and into
present time. It is the reverse of "mental" auditing in that it gets the
pc's attention exterior from the bank and on present time. By using
Communication, Control and Havingness this is done. If you make present
time a snarling hostility to the pc, he of course does not want to come
into present time and it takes just that much longer to make the CCHs work.
You do the CCHs with the Auditor's Code firmly in mind. Don't run a
process that is not producing change. Run a process as long as it produces
change. Don't go out of 2-way comm with the pc.
Complete every cycle of the process. Don't interject 2-way comm into
the middle of a cycle, use it only after a cycle is acknowledged and
complete.
Don't end a process before it is flat. Don't continue a process after
it is flat.
Use Tone 40 Commands. Don't confuse antagonistic screaming at the pc
with Tone 40. If you have to manhandle a pc, do so, but only to help him
get the process flat. If you have to manhandle the pc you've already
accumulated ARC breaks and given him loses and driven him out of session.
Improve the ability of a pc by gradient scale, give the pc lots of wins
on CCH 3 and CCH 4 and amongst them flatten off what he hasn't been able to
do.
The CCH drills must be done precisely by the auditor. But the criteria
is whether the pc gets gains, not whether the auditor is a perfect
ritualist.
Exact Ritual is something in which you should take pride. But it exists
only to accomplish auditing. When it exists for itself alone, watch out.
Audit the pc in front of you. Not some other pc or a generalized
object.
Use the CCHs to coax the pc out of the bank and into present time.
Take up the pc's physical changes as though they were originations.
Each time a new one occurs, take it up with 2-way comm as though the pc had
spoken. If the same "origination" happens again and again only take it up
again occasionally, not every time it happens.
Know what's going on. Keep the pc at it. Keep the pc informed. Keep the
pc winning. Keep the pc exteriorizing from the past and coming into present
time.
Understand the CCHs and what you're doing. If it all deteriorates to
mere ritual you'll take 25 to 50 times the time necessary to produce the
same result as I would.
The auditing is for the pc. The CCHs are for the pc. In auditing you
win in the
CCHs only when the pc wins.
LRH:jw.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON
HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6204C05 SHSBC-128 Sacredness of Cases-Self-Determinism,
Other Determinism and Pan-Determinism
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise
DETERMINING WHAT TO RUN
Here is some good news for you. Recently I completed surveys on pcs
establishing the general workability of processes. From there I found there
was a simple way of establishing what should be run on a given pc.
The entire test is by tone arm action.
The table follows:
Considerable tone arm action during rudiments-do CCHs.
No tone arm action during rudiments and no decent tone arm action
on prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross-do CCHs.
Considerable tone arm action during havingness processes-do CCHs.
Minimal tone arm action during 3D Criss Cross-do CCHs.
Minimal tone arm action during prepchecking-do CCHs.
Good tone arm action during listing in 3D Criss Cross-do 3D Criss
Cross.
Good tone arm action during prepchecking-do prepchecking or 3D
Criss Cross.
There is a phenomenon known as the "Drift Down" which is not actual
tone arm action. The pc starts in on prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross with
the tone arm high, and as listing goes on the arm gradually drifts down and
lingers on and on at the lower read. This is not really tone arm action.
The pc is just drifting toward the read of an item . In this the tone arm
does not go up or down, back and forth. It just drifts slowly and evenly
down over the first half hour period of listing and stays there.
Similarly, there is the "Drift Up" of the tone arm during prepchecking
or listing. The constantly rising needle gradually raises the tone arm up
to a high read which finally just stays there. This "Drift Up" is not
actually tone arm motion. It is just the pc's refusal to confront.
By "considerable", "good" or "adequate" tone arm action, we mean about
three-quarters of a division change in twenty minutes of auditing.
Judgement has to be used in establishing this action, as for many minutes a
tone arm may hang up even on an easy case before it begins to move again.
By minimal tone arm action we mean a quarter of a division change in
twenty minutes of auditing, or less.
The secret is this. When the tone arm moves it is because mass is
changing. When a pc is being the mass and no other mass or thing he cannot
view it, as there is nothing there to view the mass but the mass. Thus we
get cases that cannot as-is. These cases are just being the one valence or
the mass or the somatic without being or seeing anything else.
The pc can be a mass or a valence however and still view another mass
or valence.
When the pc can do this we get reaction between two masses and therefore
tone arm change. Also a pc who is being himself and is capable of viewing a
mass will get tone arm change.
It requires two locations to get a tone arm change-the location of the
pc and the location of the mass. If two such points of reference do not
exist the pc cannot view anything outside of what he is being, and thus
there is no as-isness of mass. When the pc is what the pc needs to have
audited and cannot view it, then we get no as-ising and therefore no change
of mass, since it is a one point situation as opposed to a two point
situation.
When we have a pc who is being a mass and cannot see anything or be
anything but that mass, then we get no tone arm action on any subjective
process. Everything we ask the pc to think we get little or no action on
the tone arm because there is no shift of mass-and there is no change of
case either and won't be. But when we have this same pc looking at the
auditor we do get the viewing of an outside mass and so we do get tone arm
action. Hence when rudiments produce tone arm action it is obvious that the
pc gets his change by viewing things in the room and the CCHs are
indicated. When this same pc does not get tone arm motion on a thinkingness
process, that clinches the matter for the CCHs.
Also, in doing the CCHs, we have to take a somatic or a twitch or any
pc reaction as an origin by the pc and call the pc's attention to it by
asking him quietly about it. This makes the pc view it and when the pc does
the pc gets exterior to it and so the mass changes. Thus two way comm of
this type is vital to the pc's progress and lack of it multiplies the time
in processing tremendously.
-----------------
Any Director of Processing must follow these rules in studying daily
case reports. By looking over the pc's tone arm action, providing the
auditor has recorded it frequently in prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross, the
Director of Processing can tell at once what progress is being made.
It goes further than that. You just mustn't run a pc on prepchecking or
3D Criss Cross where the pc is getting minimal tone arm action session
after session. Only the CCHs can be run. Do not let an auditor audit 3D
Criss Cross if the auditor takes two weeks to find an item routinely. And
don't let a pc be run on prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross unless good tone
arm action routinely results. To do otherwise than follow these indications
is to flagrantly waste auditing.
The only exception to this is that every pc must be regularly checked
out for missed withholds. Only if this is done will the pc stay in session
or be happy about his auditing.
----------------
This will greatly lessen your worries as an auditor and as one
supervising other auditing. Use it.
LRH:jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright �1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6204C17 SHSBC-132 Auditing
** 6204C17 SHSBC-133 How and Why Auditing Works
** 6204C19 SHSBC-134 Gross Auditing Errors
** 6204C19 SHSBC-135 Determining What to Run
** 6204C24 SHSBC-136 Rundown on 3DXX, Part I
** 6204C24 SHSBC-137 Rundown on 3DXX, Part II.
** 6204C25 SH TVD-3 Checking Line Plots
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 APRIL 1962
Franchise
CCHs
PURPOSE
A long time ago-in 1949-while doing research in Dianetics, I
experienced considerable trouble in getting some pcs "up to present time".
As you know, a pc can get "stuck in the past", and if you can get a pc
out of his engrams and reactive mind (his perpetuated past) he becomes
aware of the present. He or she is unaware of the present to the degree
that shock or injury has caused an arrest in time.
After running an engram, we used to tell the pc to "Come to present
time" and the pc would, ordinarily, but sometimes no.
By telling the pc to examine the room, the return to present time could
be accomplished on many.
I observed that a common denominator of all aberration was
interiorization into the past and unawareness of the present time
environment.
Over the years, I developed what became the CCHs.
Control, In-Communication-With, and Havingness of Present Time became
feasible through certain drills of Control, Communication and Havingness,
using the present time environment.
This is the purpose of the CCH drills-getting the pc out of the past
and into present time. Any drill which did this would be a CCH drill, even
"Come Up to Present Time!" as a single command.
The pc is stuck not just in engrams but in past identities. In fact the
pc out of present time is being the past.
The pc can be made to see he is being the past and that there is a
present.
Thus when the pc "has a somatic" and you ask the pc what it was, you
get him or her to differentiate between self and past by looking. A being
who is something, cannot observe it. A being who looks at something, ceases
to be it. A pc can even be a somatic!
Hence the CCHs must be run with a non-forbidding present time, with
queries about somatics and changes.
It's all as simple as that, basically. That's why they work-they get
the pc to Present Time. But only if they are run right. Only if they invite
the pc to progress.
Run wrong, the CCHs can actually drive a pc out of present time or park
him or her in the session.
Do you see, now?
LRH:jw.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6204C26 SHSBC-138 Rundown on Prepchecking (Professional
Attitude)
** 6204C26 SHSBC-139 Rundown on Routine 3: Routine 3DXX
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 26 APRIL 1962
Franchise
RECOMMENDED PROCESSES HGC
After considerable study of various results I have come to the
conclusion, which may be refined later, that the best shotgun for all cases
is a combination of the CCHs, Prepchecking and 3D Criss Cross used in a
certain specific and definite way with certain and specific indicators as
to when and how they are employed.
At this time there are no better processes than these three. Properly
processed on these three there are no cases which cannot be moved. Whereas
many old-time repetitive processes achieved wonderful results on this or
that special case, no such process ever achieved results on all cases.
Therefore it could be said that we have only this combination of processes
which give us remarkable results on all cases-the CCHs, Prepchecking and 3D
Criss Cross.
The only liability which these three types of processing have is that
they require very well trained auditors and very precise application. But
training skills are now such that certainly at Saint Hill all difficulties
in teaching these processes have been overcome. Given some six months a
student can be taught to use these with such skill as to cause a preclear
to gape in wonder at the rapidity of his advance. The beauty of these
processes is that they are susceptible to precision training and are
precision actions. If a preclear has peculiar and special things wrong with
him or if the preclear is very difficult these three processes properly
administered will achieve success without special understanding of the case
by the auditor.
But make no error about the precise nature of administration. There are
very few maybe's in the administration of these three processes. There are
definite answers to every problem or difference in preclears that may be
encountered. Therefore if we are to attain high level sweeping clearing in
Scientology we cannot compromise with the level of auditor training. I do
not say that all auditors need to be trained at Saint Hill, but I do say
that all auditors so far arrived as students at Saint Hill were far, far
below any required level of skill to make these processes broadly work. But
we can and are overcoming this skill factor, not only at Saint Hill but in
Central Orgs which have Saint Hill graduates in their technical divisions.
The only real technical trouble I have seen lately occurred in Orgs where
no graduate of Saint Hill was yet posted.
METHOD OF USE
The CCHs, according to my latest finding, should be used in company
with Prepchecking. The CCHs use the extroversion factor of present time.
Prepchecking gives us the introversion factor.
The system is to prepcheck the pc to a win, in one, two or three
sessions, and then CCH the pc to a win in one, two or three sessions. Use
one then the other, then the first again then the second. Alternate these
two skills, each time to a win. Use neither more than four sessions
consecutively. Don't use them both in one two-hour session. Devote the
whole of any session to either one or the other. Use a meter and rudiments
only in the Prepcheck sessions. Use no meter or rudiments in the CCHs
sessions.
In doing Prepchecking use the precise system developed to date, but use
only rudiments questions as the zero questions. The end product of
Prepchecking used this way is to achieve better tone arm action and
rudiments that will stay in when we come to 3D Criss Cross.
If the pc, while being given his preclear assessment, shows excellent tone
arm action on the think type of assessment question (which is most of it),
then the pc could be put directly onto 3D Criss Cross, and the CCHs and
Prepchecking by-passed. But if after a while or at any time the pc's tone
arm action became poor and rudiments became very hard to keep in, the pc
would be returned to or started on again CCHs and Prepchecking until a
session was more possible on 3D Criss Cross.
If minimal tone arm action was present during the preclear assessment
then the pc would be put at once on CCHs and Prepchecking as above.
This is how these three activities, CCHs, Prepchecking and 3D Criss
Cross, should be used. Use the CCHs against Prepchecking until rudiments go
in very easily or stay in and the tone arm has excellent action. Then go
into 3D Criss Cross. But if rudiments on 3D Criss Cross become consistently
difficult and tone arm action drops, the auditor should return the pc to
CCHs and Prepchecking until tone arm action is regained and 3D Criss Cross
can be continued.
Thus we see that the CCHs and Prepchecking are used to get the pc into
session and keep him easily in session, and the 3D Criss Cross is used for
longrange permanent case gain. One does not try for real case gain with
CCHs and Prepchecking even though real gain exists in the use of these
processes. One tries for real gain with 3D Criss Cross.
LIMITATIONS OF USE
Oddly enough it has been found that 3D Criss Cross is easier to learn
than Prepchecking, and any auditor who can prepcheck can rapidly learn 3D
Criss Cross. But it is also interesting that Prepchecking is necessary to
know before one does 3D Criss Cross, due to meter experience and rudiments.
It is easier to read a meter under Prepchecking than under 3D Criss Cross.
But one has to be more skilled as an auditor in pressing home to do
Prepchecking than to do 3D Criss Cross.
If an auditor can do skilled Prepchecking and get results his battle
with auditing is three-quarters over. The rest is very easy.
A FINAL WORD
There is nothing less than complete precision required of today's
auditor. That precision can be learned and is being learned. It is
marvellous to be audited by an Auditor who knows his Model Session and TRs,
who doesn't Q and A and who just goes on and gets the job done, who stays
in two-way comm with his pc during the CCHs, and who doesn't flinch at
asking embarrassing questions in Prepchecking. It is NOT difficult to
obtain this perfection. Its attainment guarantees the success of sessions
and the future of Scientology.
In an Academy teach the fundamentals of Scientology, Axioms, Codes,
Scales, TRs, Meter and Model Session, etc. Teach such a student to do the
CCHs, old repetitive processes such as ARC Straight Wire, and Prepchecking
and let him get his results on graduation with CCHs and Prepchecking as
used herein. And graduate him with those skills well learned. Then later
teach him a Class II Course bringing his TRs, Model Session and Metering to
perfection and teach 3D Criss Cross. Then we'll have good auditors.
Don't compromise with auditing skill. And the combination of processes
given herein will make every pc you audit thrilled with the results you
will obtain.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 29 APRIL 1962
All Saint Hill
Graduates
All Saint Hill
Students
General to Orgs
Franchise
Additional Mailing
ROUTINE 3G (EXPERIMENTAL)
(A preview of a Clearing Process)
We are engaged in piloting through fast clearing.
Using the data and experience of 3D Criss Cross (which remains valid
and all mistakes of which can be cleaned up as per this Info Letter) we
should get faster results and, more important, obtain a continuing gain on
the pc until the pc is clear.
The best locator of the Goals Problem Mass is from goals. On any pc
(whose rudiments can be kept in), even pcs being run on 3D Criss Cross, the
fastest road to clear is probably as follows:
ROUTINE 3G STEPS IN BRIEF
1. Do a goals assessment.
2. List and nul for an item obtained from the goal found, by
complete listing.
3. Oppterm the item found by listing, nulling and finding the
oppterm by complete listing.
4. Repeat 1, 2 and 3 many times.
------------------
New data which makes this possible is as follows:
1. Listing is auditing.
2. Goals locate more deeply in the Goals Problem Mass than any
other line.
3. Other types of line are less accurate and can give the pc more
discomfort than goals items.
4. Finding a goal was blocked by out-rudiments, invalidations and
missed withholds.
5. What a complete list is has been discovered and tests developed
conditionally.
6. Pcs can become upset (given heavy somatics) by incomplete lines
and by oppterming wrong items.
------------------
In theory if an Item list is handled as a process, it must be
completed.
All charge probably does not bleed off a goals list and these tests do
not apply to a goals list as (in goals) a pc is facing no mass, only ideas.
In items he faces up to mass. Items are charged, not goals. The following
conditional tests are applied to Lists of Items (not a goals list) to
establish if a list is complete.
(a) All tone arm action has ceased by list end, but was present and
adequate at list beginning, just as in any repetitive process.
(b) By reading the first 12 items of the list back to the pc,
as differentiation, no Tone Arm Action is produced. (Use the second
12 for next test.) (No thorough differentiation is done on the
list.)
(c) The first 12 items of the list produce no great needle action
in nulling and all but one or two go out on reading them the first
time. (Use the second 12 for next test, third 12 for third test,
etc.)
(d) Almost all the list vanishes on the first nulling of it. No
items grind out.
(e) The meter does not respond to a question: "Are there any more
terminals?"
Coax the pc into completing the list by these tests. Keep off ARC break
reactions by asking for missed withholds and invalidations.
In theory, when the terminal is attained by a goals assessment and a
resulting list of items, and when the opposing item is obtained, if both
lists were complete, the two items should "blow" and the goal cease to
react. This then would make repetitive auditing unnecessary.
------------------
The safest action on any case that has been run on 3D Criss Cross is to
take any goal ever found on the case and check it out. If it checks out,
ignore the former terminal and complete the goals terminal list as per the
above five tests and then oppterm it.
3D Criss Cross is a good training ground.
Any new auditor on Routine 3 processes should be put on 3D Criss Cross
with Pre-Hav Levels as a source and be made to complete his list, find an
item and do a complete oppterm list.
Incomplete listing, invalidations and out-rudiments are the main faults
of Routine 3 processes. A new auditor should be cured of them before
messing with a goals assessment, which is the touchiest to do and hardest
on a case.
Values gained in receiving or giving 3D Criss Cross are great. Values
from Routine 3G are probably much greater and much more comfortable.
------------------
In doing 3D Criss Cross or Routine 3G omit Differentiation as a step
except to stir up the pc for more items or to test the completeness of a
list.
------------------
A goal is checked (whether new or old) by:
1. Nulling down to one goal.
2. Getting rudiments carefully in.
3. Taking off any invalidations (invalidations when present read
the same as the goal or item while the goal or item does not read).
4. Reading the goal, then a goal that went out only after a second
nulling of the list, then the goal found, then a nul goal, etc. The
goal should continue to read.
A goal or item reads constantly, each time it is said. It reads tick,
tick, tick, always the same and every time, providing invalidations are off
and rudiments are in.
An item is checked out the same way as a goal.
No item on a complete list should have more than one or two nulling
marks after it. If an auditor has to cover a list 25 times to get it nul,
it's laughably incomplete. An auditing supervisor can simply look at a
list's nul marks and tell if it's complete or not. Too many nul marks
equals an incomplete list always.
A complete list, in theory, just fades away and leaves an item.
Perhaps an oppterm list will just fade out and the original item and
goal will vanish.
------------------
Routine 3G is an effort to exploit the assess to clear phenomena
without auditing any items and to keep the pc continually gaining without
slumps.
------------------
Routine 3 failed only because of out-rudiments, poor meter handling,
bad TRs and Model Session. It never failed because of its theory or
technology.
------------------
It is recommended that, when an auditor is skilled, the pc be placed on
Routine 3G regardless of anything found by 3D Criss Cross.
Ignore all previously found or run items. Take up only a goal found
(that still checks out as above) or a new goals list.
If a goals list has been lost, reconstruct it by taking invalidations
off the subject of goals and having the pc list newly.
------------------
Goals lists run from 100 to 1000, sometimes more.
Item lists seldom run less than 300, usually more.
------------------
Use the same goals list for Step 4 of Routine 3G. Add to it. Nul the
whole thing again. Don't try to get all TA action and charge off a goals
list.
Always get all action and charge off an items list.
------------------
The steps of Routine 3D Criss Cross now are:
1. Get a Pre-Hav Level by usual Pre-Hav Assessment.
2. List for the item.
3. Test for completeness with above Completeness tests.
4. Complete if not complete.
5. Nul list to one item.
6. Check out item (as above).
7. Oppterm the item at once.
8. Test oppterm list for completeness.
9. Nul oppterm list.
10. Check out item.
Put anything found on a Line Plot.
------------------
The steps of Routine 3G are:
1. Do or recover a goals list.
2. Nul the list to one goal.
3. Check out the goal.
4. List for an item from the goal. (Use the wording: "Who or what
would want to [goal] ?")
5. Test for completeness (as above).
6. Complete list if not complete. (Do 5 and 6 until the list is
complete.)
7. Nul the list to one item.
8. Check out the item.
9. Oppterm list the item. (Use: "Who or what would oppose [item]
?")
10. Test for completeness of list.
11. Complete list. (Do 10 and 11 until list is complete.)
12. Nul list.
13. Check out item.
14. Assess for a new goal as above and do each of these steps in
order.
Keep an accurate Line Plot record of all goals and items found.
------------------
Repairing a case that has had bad or erroneous assessment or running of
items on Routine 3 or 3A or 3D or 3D Criss Cross is done by the Routine 3G
steps above. The errors should vanish.
------------------
Note that the word "want" is used to get an item list from a goal. "Who
or What
would want to .......(goal) .......?" (Not "Who or What would [goal] ?")
------------------
A pc can be coaxed into completing a list by differentiation, which
consists of asking him "Would a (item) want to (goal)?" for each item he or
she has listed. But only differentiate a few until pc is going again.
------------------
Don't Tone 40 ack items or goals a pc gives you. It stops the pc by
completing the cycle. Just murmur at him or her when you get a goal or
item. Ask the question that is getting items only as a prompt when pc runs
down. Not while a pc is talking goals or items. Try to get several goals or
items for one question. Coax the pc. Keep the missed withholds picked up.
If the pc gets a "dirty needle" in listing 3D Criss Cross, an earlier item
is wrong. (This is a pc "needle pattern".) A wrong item found constitutes a
missed withhold. Backtrack to earlier items. A wrong goal found can cause a
"dirty needle". Otherwise a "dirty needle" is caused by missed withholds.
If you can't clean up a "dirty needle" with missed withhold questions, a
goal or item was wrong and you had better backtrack to it at once, no
matter what else you were doing.
The way to do it is re-check all items on the Line Plot and correct the
earliest item that won't now check out (unless it and its oppterm blew, of
course).
------------------
You will receive more data on Routine 3G as it is found.
------------------
The Modifier is part, it seems, of the oppterm so its use is dropped.
It is not found now.
------------------
CAUTIONS
DO NOT LET ROUTINE 3G BE RUN AS THE FIRST ROUTINE 3 PROCESS BY ANY
INEXPERIENCED AUDITOR. LET AUDITORS BECOME PERFECT USING ROUTINE 3D CRISS
CROSS AS CONTAINED HEREIN. A goals assessment is tougher than 3D Criss
Cross and goals are more easily invalidated than items. Further Routine 3G
should clear off any errors run into a case by 3D Criss Cross. Therefore
don't train with the only cure. 3D Criss Cross does well with cases too!
Train Auditors to do Routine 3 processes with Routine 3D Criss Cross from
Pre-Hav Levels. Only when they're perfect, let them go to more advanced
routines. Routine 3D Criss Cross can be run on staffs and HGC pcs with
great advantage to the pc and no unremediable risk to the pc.
Requisite to run Routine 3D Criss Cross is good gains with Prepchecking
and the CCHs.
We have developed a good process to graduate the auditor to clearing
without fouling up pcs too badly in Routine 3D Criss Cross. And the pcs
will win too if it is well and thoroughly done.
------------------
All this should be good news to people whose goals have been found.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6205C01 SHSBC-140 Missed Withholds
** 6205C01 SHSBC-141 Routine 3G, Experimental Preview of a Clearing
Process
** 6205C02 SH TVD-4A Prepchecking (Aud: LRH), Part I
** 6205C02 SH TVD-4B Prepchecking, Part 11
** 6205C03 SHSBC-142 Craftsmanship-Fundamentals
** 6205C03 SHSBC-143 Prepchecking
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1962
Franchise
ARC BREAKS
MISSED WITHHOLDS
(HOW TO USE THIS BULLETIN.
WHEN AN AUDITOR OR STUDENT HAS TROUBLE WITH AN "ARC BREAKY PC" OR NO
GAIN, OR WHEN AN AUDITOR IS FOUND TO BE USING FREAK CONTROL METHODS OR
PROCESSES TO "KEEP A PC IN SESSION", THE HCO SEC, D OF T OR D OF P
SHOULD JUST HAND A COPY OF THIS BULLETIN TO THE AUDITOR AND MAKE HIM OR
HER STUDY IT AND TAKE AN HCO EXAM ON IT.)
After some months of careful observation and tests, I can state
conclusively that:
ALL ARC BREAKS STEM FROM MISSED WITHHOLDS.
This is vital technology, vital to the auditor and to anyone who wants
to live.
Conversely:
THERE ARE NO ARC BREAKS WHEN MISSED WITHHOLDS HAVE BEEN CLEANED UP.
By WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL ACT.
By MISSED WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL
ACT WHICH HAS BEEN RESTIMULATED BY ANOTHER BUT NOT DISCLOSED.
This is FAR more important in an auditing session than most auditors
have yet realized. Even when some auditors are told about this and shown it
they still seem to miss its importance and fail to use it. Instead they
continue to use strange methods of controlling the pc and oddball processes
on ARC Breaks.
This is so bad that one auditor let a pc die rather than pick up the
missed withholds! So allergy to picking up missed withholds can be so great
that an auditor has been known to fail utterly rather than do so. Only
constant hammering can drive this point home. When it is driven home, only
then can auditing begin to happen across the world; the datum is that
important.
An auditing session is 50% technology and 50% application. I am
responsible for the technology. The auditor is wholly responsible for the
application. Only when an auditor realizes this can he or she begin to
obtain uniformly marvellous results everywhere.
No auditor now needs "something else", some odd mechanism to keep pcs
in session.
PICKING UP MISSED WITHHOLDS KEEPS PCS IN SESSION.
There is no need for a rough, angry ARC Breaky session. If there is one
it is not the fault of the pc. It is the fault of the auditor. The auditor
has failed to pick up missed withholds.
As of now it is not the pc that sets the tone of the session. It is the
auditor. And the auditor who has a difficult session (providing he or she
has used standard
technology, model session, and can run an E-Meter), has one only because he
or she failed to ask for missed withholds.
What is called a "dirty needle" (a pc's needle pattern) is caused by
missed withholds, not withholds.
Technology today is so powerful that it must be flawlessly applied. One
does his CCHs in excellent 2 way comm with the pc. One has his TRs, Model
Session and E-Meter operation completely perfect. And one follows exact
technology. And one keeps the missed withholds picked up.
There is an exact and precise auditor action and response for every
auditing situation, and for every case. We are not today beset by variable
approaches. The less variable the auditor's actions and responses, the
greater gain in the pc. It is terribly precise. There is no room for flubs.
Further, every pc action has an exact auditor response. And each of
these has its own drill by which it can be learned.
Auditing today is not an art, either in technology or procedure. It is
an exact science. This removes Scientology from every one of the past
practices of the mind.
Medicine advanced only to the degree that its responses by the
practitioner were standardized and the practitioner had a professional
attitude toward the public.
Scientology is far ahead of that today.
What a joy it is to a preclear to receive a completely standard
session. To receive a text book session. And what gains the pc makes! And
how easy it is on the auditor!
It isn't how interesting or clever the auditor is that makes the
session. It's how standard the auditor is. Therein lies pc confidence.
Part of that standard technology is asking for missed withholds any
time the pc starts to give any trouble. This is, to a pc, a totally
acceptable control factor. And it totally smooths the session.
You have no need for and must not use any ARC Break process. Just ask
for missed withholds.
Here are some of the manifestations cured by asking for missed
withholds.
1. Pc failing to make progress.
2. Pc critical of or angry at auditor.
3. Pc refusing to talk to auditor.
4. Pc attempting to leave session.
5. Pc not desirous of being audited (or anybody not desirous of
being audited).
6. Pc boiling off.
7. Pc exhausted.
8. Pc feeling foggy at session end.
9. Dropped havingness.
10. Pc telling others the auditor is no good.
11. Pc demanding redress of wrongs.
12. Pc critical of organizations or people of Scientology.
13. People critical of Scientology.
14. Lack of auditing results.
15. Dissemination failures.
Now I think you will agree that in the above list we have every ill we
suffer from in the activities of auditing.
Now PLEASE believe me when I tell you there is ONE CURE for the lot and
ONLY that one. There are no other cures.
The cure is contained in the simple question or its variations "Have I
missed a withhold on you ? "
THE COMMANDS
In case of any of the conditions l. to 15. above ask the pc one of the
following commands and CLEAN THE NEEDLE OF ALL INSTANT READ. Ask the exact
question you asked the first time as a final test. The needle must be clean
of all instant reaction before you can go on to anything else. It helps the
pc if each time the needle twitches, the auditor says, "That" or "There"
quietly but only to help the pc see what is twitching. One doesn't
interrupt the pc if he or she is already giving it. This prompting is the
only use of latent reads in Scientology-to help the pc spot what reacted in
the first place.
The commonest questions:
"In this session, have I missed a withhold on you?"
"In this session have I failed to find out something?"
"In this session is there something I don't know about you?"
The best beginning rudiments withhold question:
"Since the last session is there something you have done that I
don't know about?"
Prepcheck Zero Questions follow:
"Has somebody failed to find out about you who should have?"
"Has anyone ever failed to find out something about you?"
"Is there something I failed to find out about you?"
"Have you ever successfully hidden something from an auditor?"
"Have you ever done something somebody failed to discover?"
"Have you ever evaded discovery in this lifetime?"
"Have you ever hidden successfully?"
"Has anyone ever failed to locate you?"
(These Zeroes do not produce "What" questions until the auditor has
located a specific overt.)
When Prepchecking, when running any process but the CCHs, if any one of
the auditing circumstances in l to 15 above occurs, ask for missed
withholds. Before leaving any chain of overts in Prepchecking, or during
Prepchecking, ask frequently for missed withholds, "Have I missed any
withhold on you?" or as above.
Do not conclude intensives on any process without cleaning up missed
withholds.
Asking for missed withholds does not upset the dictum of using no O/W
processes in rudiments.
Most missed withholds clean up at once on two way comm providing the
auditor doesn't ask leading questions about what the pc is saying. Two way
comm consists of asking for what the meter showed, acknowledging what the
pc said and checking the meter again with the missed withhold question. If
pc says, "I was mad at my wife," as an answer, just ack and check the meter
with the missed withhold question. Don't say, "What was she doing?"
In cleaning missed withholds do not use the Prepcheck system unless you are
Prepchecking. And even in Prepchecking, if the zero is not a missed
withhold question and you are only checking for missed withholds amid other
activities, do it simply as above, by two way comm, not by the Prepcheck
system.
To get auditing into a state of perfection, to get clearing general,
all we have to do is:
1. Know our basics (Axioms, Scales, Codes, the fundamental theory
about the thetan and the mind);
2. Know our practical (TRs, Model Session, E-Meter, CCHs,
Prepchecking and clearing routines).
In actual fact this is not much to ask. For the return is smooth
results and a far, far better world. An HPA/HCA can learn the data in l
above and all but clearing routines in the material in 2. An HPA/HCA should
know these things to perfection. They are not hard to learn. Additives and
interpretations are hard to get around. Not the actual data and
performance.
Knowing these things, one also needs to know that all one has to do is
clean the E-Meter of missed withholds to make any pc sit up and get audited
smoothly, and all is as happy as a summer dream.
We are making all our own trouble. Our trouble is lack of precise
application of Scientology. We fail to apply it in our lives or sessions
and try something bizarre and then we fail too. And with our TRs, Model
Session and meters we are most of all failing to pick up and clean up
MISSED WITHHOLDS.
We don't have to clean up all the withholds if we keep the Missed
Withholds cleaned up.
Give a new auditor the order to clean up "Missed Withholds" and he or
she invariably will start asking the pc for withholds. That's a mistake.
You ask the pc for Missed Withholds. Why stir up new ones to be missed when
you haven't cleaned up those already missed? Instead of putting out the
fire we pour on gunpowder. Why find more you can then miss when you haven't
found those that have been missed.
Don't be so confounded reasonable about the pc's complaints. Sure, they
may all be true BUT he's complaining only because withholds have been
missed. Only then does the pc complain bitterly.
Whatever else you learn, learn and understand this please. Your
auditing future hangs on it. The fate of Scientology hangs on it. Ask for
missed withholds when sessions go wrong. Get the missed withholds when life
goes wrong. Pick up the missed withholds when staffs go wrong. Only then
can we win and grow. We're waiting for you to become technically perfect
with TRs, Model Session and the E-Meter, to be able to do CCHs and
Prepchecking and clearing techniques, and to learn to spot and pick up
missed withholds.
If pcs, organizations and even Scientology vanish from Man's view it
will be because you did not learn and use these things.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B is changed by HCO B 4 July 1962, Bulletin Changes, page 101.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MAY 1962
Franchise
PREPCHECKING AND SEC CHECKING
How do you use Form 3 (the Joburg), Form 6A and other forms with
Prepchecking?
These forms have great value in improving a case, they dig up things.
They get off the overts against Scientology that hold up many a case.
Now that Prepchecking is here, with all its vast ability to clean up
this life, you still need these forms. For the most general auditor fault
in Prepchecking is going too shallow. By using these forms this is to a
large measure remedied by the use of all our Sec Check forms as released on
HCO Policy Letters or even in Information Letters.
An old auditor, for instance, will make much faster case progress (or
even make case progress) if given the Saint Hill Special "last 2 pages of
the Joburg and a Form 6A".
Prepchecking and Sec Checking come together with a simple formula:
IF A SEC CHECK QUESTION DOESN'T AT ONCE CLEAR ON THE METER BY SIMPLE
REVELATION, THE AUDITOR PREPCHECKS IT.
The smoothest way to clean a Sec Check question is to ask the pc to
consider it carefully, then clean the needle of any response to it and go
on. There is no varying the question.
If a question doesn't clear on one or two revelations, you then swing
straight into a formal Prepcheck of the question.
This specific drill, shortly to become a TR, should be precisely
followed.
Auditor (watching meter) (using Sec Check Form question): "Have you
ever stolen anything?"
(Auditor may tell pc if needle reacted and steer pc's attention.)
Pc: "I stole a watch once." (Or whatever response.)
Auditor: "Thank you. I will now check the question: 'Have you ever
stolen anything?' "
IF NEEDLE DOESN'T REACT:
Auditor: "That seems clear at the moment." (Asks next Sec Check
question.)
IF NEEDLE STILL REACTS:
Auditor: "There's still something on this."
(Auditor writes down the question on his report as a Zero A question.
Auditor probes for a specific single overt, finds one, forms the What
question for use in a chain, writes it on his report and goes straight into
routine Prepchecking. When the What question is null, the auditor returns
to the same Sec Check question as above, tests it for now being clean. If
not, more Prepchecking on it is indicated. If clean now he goes to next
question on Form.)
If the auditor knows this drill his progress down a form will be
relatively rapid.
The theory of this is that if a question doesn't promptly clear on the
needle then it is part of a chain and must be Prepchecked to get all of it.
The phrasing of the What question for Prepchecking is not the Sec Check
question. The What question is derived only from the overt discovered.
Any Sec Check question Prepchecked is tested before leaving it just as
though it were found reacting in the first place (same drill as above).
USE OF RUDIMENTS IN PREPCHECKING
Do not continually ask the pc, "In this session have I missed a
withhold on you?" while doing any Prepchecking. In Prepchecking one asks
for missed withholds only after cleaning a What question and in End
Rudiments.
Prepchecking sends the pc down the track. If an auditor says during
Prepchecking a chain, "In this session have I missed a withhold on you?" it
yanks the pc back to present time and out of whatever incident he or she is
in.
In doing a Routine 3 Process one asks for missed withholds often and at
any time, but not in a Prepcheck session.
If you do five or so Sec Check questions without a single one having to
be Prepchecked, it is, however, good policy to ask for missed withholds.
Ask for missed withholds in Prepchecking only after a What question is nul,
but always ask and clean it then.
In Routine 3 processes ask for missed withholds at any time.
HELP THE PC
In general, when getting rudiments in or getting off missed withholds
or invalidations, help the pc by guiding his attention against the needle.
This is quite simple. The auditor asks the question, the needle
instantly reacts, the pc (as he or she usually does) looks puzzled if the
auditor says "It reacts." The pc thinks it over. As he or she is thinking,
the auditor will see the same reaction on the needle. Softly the auditor
says "That" or "There" or "What's that you're looking at?" As the pc knows
what he or she is looking at at that instant, the thing can be dug up.
This is auditor co-operation, not triumph.
Most often the pc does not know what it is that reacts as only unknowns
react. Therefore an auditor's "There" when the needle twitches again,
before the pc has answered, co-ordinates with whatever the pc is looking at
and thus it can be spotted and revealed by the pc. This is only done when
the pc comm lags for a few seconds.
Remember, the pc is always willing to reveal. He or she doesn't know
What to reveal. Therein lies the difficulty. Pcs get driven out of session
when asked to reveal something yet do not know what to reveal.
By the auditor's saying "There" or "What's that?" quietly each time the
needle reacts newly, the pc is led to discover what should be revealed.
Auditors and pcs get into a games condition in Prepchecking and
rudiments only when the auditor refuses this help to the pc.
New auditors routinely believe that in Prepchecking the pc knows the
answer and won't give it. This is an error. If the pc knew all the answer,
it wouldn't react on the meter.
Old-timers have found out that only if they steer by repeated meter
reaction, giving the pc "There" or "What's that?" can the pc answer up on
most rudiments questions, missed withholds and so on.
This is the only use of reads other than instant reads on the E-Meter.
Help the pc. He doesn't know. Otherwise the needle would never react.
Even if doing a Sec Check form still call it Prepchecking when done
this way. This is "Prepchecking on Forms." The Zero for the whole lot of
course is "Are you withholding anything?" Thus Sec Check form questions,
when they do not nul at one crack become Zero A questions, and the What
formed from the overt found becomes the No. 1 question.
LRH :jw.cden L. RON HUBBARD
copyright �1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 10 MAY 1962
Students,
sthil
Franchise
Central Orgs
ROUTINE 3GA (EXPERIMENTAL)
(A Clearing Procedure
Intended to Handle the GPM
Accurately without Liability)
As the commonest difficulties auditors are having and the greatest
errors that can be made on a Routine 3 process are the same, I have been
working to get around these and may have done so in Routine 3GA.
The difficulties are:
1. Getting a pc to complete a list.
2. Getting the right item.
The greatest liabilities in a Routine 3 process are:
1. Incomplete list.
2. Wrong item.
As you can see (aside from getting the correct goal), the greatest
dangers in the processes are unfortunately the most difficult for an
auditor to do correctly by recent experience.
Therefore in Routine 3GA we have the same end product as in Routine 3G
(as per HCO Information Letter of 29 April 1962) but, if it works smoothly,
without the liabilities.
As listing can be considered processing, I have made it follow the
rules of processing in Routine 3GA, to wit, plus and minus and possible
stuck flows should be regarded. The principle of the four basic flows is
therefore used in Routine 3GA (HCO Bulletin of 25 January 1962).
ROUTINE 3GA
This has four steps only:
1. Find a goal (done as in Routine 3 and Routine 3G).
2. List four lists simultaneously to no TA action on any list.
3. Nul each list once in rotation, then twice in rotation, then
three times, etc, to try to locate items.
4. Find a new goal and repeat 2 and 3.
STEP ONE
This is the most difficult and is done exactly as in Routine 3 or 3G.
The goal must check out to a constant instant tick.
If the goal has an instant "Dirty needle" get the missed W/Hs off it
before checking. It will probably vanish as a goal and another goal is the
correct one.
Goal finding is made easier by keeping the subject of listing,
auditing, the session and the goal free of missed withholds, including the
overt of missing withholds on others.
A good, clean instant ticking, constantly reacting each time it is said
goal is what we want in Step One.
Once it is checked out as THE GOAL we don't check it again until Step 3
is complete.
STEP TWO
This is the innovation. We do not oppterm an item. We oppterm the goal
itself. Thus we never really have to find an item in order to oppterm. And
even if we found a wrong item, it would not further upset the case.
Further, we use FOUR versions of the goal for our lists. And we do Four
lists at the same time.
We take items down on one list until the pc seems draggy. Then we pick
up any missed withhold and go to the next list. And so on through four
lists, around and around until each list shows no TA action on a few items
being read to the pc.
The words "Who or What would WANT ...." inserted before the original
goal for the first list, the words "Who or What would oppose ...." for the
second list. The words "Who or What would not oppose ...." for the third
list. And the words "Who or What would not want ...." for the fourth list.
Example:
Goal: To Catch Catfish.
List One: Who or What would want to catch catfish? (Outflow.)
List Two: Who or What would oppose catching catfish? (Inflow.)
List Three: Who or What would not oppose catching catfish? (Restrained
Inflow.)
List Four: Who or What would not want to catch catfish? (Restrained
Outflow.)
Use four sheets of paper or four double sheets, legal (foolscap)
length, ruled or not. Put the page number and the list question, the date
and pc's name at the top of the first sheet, and the page number and list
question on subsequent pages. Don't tangle up on labelling and numbering as
it will be a trick keeping four lists going anyway. And if you fail to
label them right or list on wrong sheets, you'll confuse the session
horribly. So be neat and try to shift paper quietly in the session to
reduce pc's getting attention on auditor. When a sheet is full drop it on a
common pile on the floor, do a new sheet for that list. Separate the
floored lists afterwards.
List a list as long as the pc does it easily. Whether this is 3 items
or 30 on one list. Then check for missed withholds: "In this session have I
missed a withhold on you?" Clean it as necessary and go on to the next
list.
Give the pc the list question only often enough to keep the pc going,
not for every item he or she gives.
Put anything on the list the pc wants on it. Don't let pc mutter and
claw around for "the exact item", just keep the pc naming items.
Try to keep the lists vaguely equal in length.
If the "winds of space" turn on (if pc is getting his or her face
pushed in) go a little stronger on Lists l and 3. That takes the pressure
off.
If pc thinks they're all complete, pull any session missed withhold,
test one or two lists for TA action by reading a few items to pc, and if TA
action is present or if the list question reacts (or other tests including
finding if the pc still has somatics or pressures), continue listing.
When lists do not produce TA action, etc, the listing can be considered
complete.
Do NOT test goal for complete list as a test.
Lists may go to several hundred items each.
Learn to list rapidly. Don't upset the pc by calling for repeats of
earlier items you missed. The pc probably will have forgotten them and get
confused.
Don't pretend you've heard an item when you haven't. Get it correct
from pc. He or she will only feel more acknowledged.
Pcs go groggy, lose interest and refuse to list only when session
withholds are missed. Running too long on one flow, however, is conducive
to withholds developing.
STEP THREE
Nul each list with three repeats of the item. Mark it with a slant for
"In", use an X for "Out". Tell the pc it's in or out and go on.
If a list is at all live, listing is incomplete. This is not likely to
happen in Routine 3GA unless the auditor has made very short lists.
Nul all lists. Try to isolate an item on each.
Be fully prepared to find, with all rudiments well in, no items and to
have the goal vanish. You will have made a long step toward clear if all
goes out.
If all doesn't go out and items and goal hang, lists are incomplete.
The goal may also fail to react on only partially completed lists using
Routine 3GA, so make sure the TA action is out of the lists before nulling
is begun.
Nul List One once down, List Two once down, List Three once down, List
Four once down. Then nul List One through any items still reacting, List
Two similarly, etc.
It may be found on further data that nulling one page of each list at a
time in sequence, List 1, 2, 3, 4, is easier on the pc than nulling a whole
list. This is permissible.
STEP FOUR
Find a new goal as in Step One. You may have to add more goals. You may
only need to get missed withholds and invalidations off goals lists and
various goals to have a new one pop up.
Repeat Steps 2, 3 and 4.
------------------
If the pc has been run extensively on 3D Criss Cross, Routine 3GA
should push off all such charge without further attention according to
preliminary findings.
------------------
A good auditing maxim applies hard to 3GA. When the auditor is faced
with the unusual, do the usual.
Use Routine 3GA in preference to any other Routine 3 activity.
------------------
Lengthy as this may seem, it is far shorter than finding and auditing
items on processes.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 MAY 1962
CenOCon
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Graduates
CASE REPAIR
We, for some time now, have been moving in spheres of higher level
auditing which reached deeper into a case than old processes could repair.
The definition of a master process would be one which ran out all other
processes and processing. We now have such processes.
As there have been several Routines run on various cases, and as there
is a new way of Sec Checking called Prepchecking, it is time I issued data
on case repair in case any of these routines were done wrong by auditors or
left unflat.
Routine 1a
The best remedy for any bracket process on problems is to flatten the
exact process that was run and left unflat.
The auditor should explore this and get the exact version.
Only the exact problems process that was left unflat will flatten that
problems process.
Sec Checking
Unflat Sec Checking, where material was overlooked, is best remedied by
a combination of CCHs and Prepchecking, using the exact Sec Check form
originally left unflat and covering it completely again, but using HCO
Bulletin of May l0, 1962 which combines Sec Checking and Prepchecking. This
will get off all the rough edges that are left over from Sec Checking only.
It is quite revealing how much auditors left untouched during the Sec
Checking days. And how many missed withholds were generated.
CCH Blowy Pcs
Pcs who give an appearance of blowing while being run on CCHs or who
are nattery to their auditors are best run on the CCHs in complete Model
Session form, with full beginning and end rudiments on the meter. The body
of the session is, of course, run without a meter when Model Session is
used on the CCHs.
Never ask the pc if you've missed a withhold on him or her with the pc
off a meter. Don't ask it socially either. You can lose more friends that
way!
Prepchecking Repair
When a pc has been getting a lot of Prepchecking from one or several
auditors and the pc has begun to look withdrawn or misemotional in life, a
lot of What questions have been left unflat.
The best remedy, and the proper one, for this is to take all the pc's
Prepcheck auditors' reports and, in session, test every What question from
the earliest one ever asked for needle reaction.
If a What question reacts, no matter what it was, clean it up by the
routine
Prepchecking system until the original What question is nul, then ask for
missed withholds in the session and go on to the next What question in the
reports. Don't vary the What questions you find in the reports. Just work
the chain until you get the chain fully blown.
This cleaning up of every What question left not nul can do wonders for
a pc.
Some What questions will be found to be silly. Clean them up anyway.
If another auditor did it, ask, after a What question is nul, "In that
session, did the auditor miss a withhold on you?" and clean it off the
needle.
CCHs
Where the CCHs have been done wrong or have been left unflat, just do
more good CCHs with proper two way comm about Physical originations by the
pc. The CCHs done right flatten CCHs done wrong.
SCS
Where SCS has been done wrong or left unflat, just do it right with two
way comm about physical originations by the pc and it should come right.
In one case SCS was never flattened on Start because the pc considered
the body already started and thus the pc could never execute the command.
The remedy was to flatten Stop much better.
Op Pro by Dup
Old Opening Procedure By Duplication has been left unflat on a lot of
Scientologists.
One way is to just flatten it.
Another way is to add it to the CCHs as a fifth CCH in sequence and run
it only until it ceases to produce change and then go to CCH l. However, I
think it's best just to grind it flat, as it was and is a test of endurance
in duplication unlike the CCHs.
Routine 2
If left unflat just ignore. There are things you can do with it such as
to add want, not want, oppose, not oppose to the level and list four lines
with You or Your as the terminal.
Example: Original level found was "blame".
Who or what would want to blame you?
Who or what would oppose blaming you?
Who or what would not oppose blaming you?
Who or what would not want to blame you?
Only if a worsening of case was directly traceable to having had a Pre-
Hav level run would one recover that level and treat it as above.
The listing would have to be complete on every one of the four lists
and it would be done as in Routine 3GA, Information Letter of May l0, 1962.
As the auditor might not have had the right level at the time,
repairing Routine 2 should be done only after careful review and probably
not even then.
Routines 3, 3A and 3D
The original Routine 3 began with finding the pc's goal. This also
applies to Routine 3A and 3D.
All these are repaired the same way.
You ignore everything but the goal. You skip the terminal or oppterm or
the modifier or oppgoal. You use only the goal. Choose the First Goal Ever
Found. The FIRST, FIRST, FIRST, no matter who found it or where.
All invalidations, suppressions and missed W/Hs on:
(a) The routines,
(b) The auditor or auditors who did any assessments on the pc,
(c) Scientology,
(d) Listing in general (goals, items),
(e) Nulling any list (including Pre-Hav Scale),
(f) The goal found,
are carefully picked up. The goal itself is worked over hardest. When the
goal is clean, it is carefully checked against the rest of the goals list.
If the goal checks out, you then use the current goals routine on it
(Routine 3GA at this time of writing) and go on from there.
If the goal does not check out even after the most careful cleaning up
of its invalidations, suppressions or missed withholds, add to the goals
list and start in to find the right goal and then use it in the current
routine and continue with that routine.
This repair is highly specific, is very important, and will have to be
done on every person on whom a goal was ever located.
THIS INCLUDES ALL CLEARS.
There is no other method of salvage.
If more than one goal was found, take the first and treat it as given
here, then take the second goal ever found, clean it up and so forth.
Routine 3D Criss Cross
Because auditors had so much trouble getting lists completed, Routine
3D Criss Cross is the most important to patch up.
In fact, many cases run on it will not progress on a current Goals
Routine until 3D Criss Cross is cleaned up.
The process was powerful and only cleans itself up. But, cleaned up, it
gives fantastic case resurgences.
Take all the items found and scrap them.
Take a list of the lines from which the items came, written in the
sequence they were used. With the pc on a meter in Model Session, query
the pc for his or her reactions on each line at the time it was done.
Take the earliest line source that was done on the pc that gave the pc
sensation, pain, heat or cold. In other words, the earliest line source
that produced somatics. It must be the earliest. In some cases a goal was
the earliest thing from which a list was taken but the listing of a goal,
if it was not productive of somatics, can be left, just as any other line
source can be left alone on repair-no somatics, neglect the line.
Now comes the only tricky part. Convert the line source into four line
sources by entering into its wording want, oppose, not oppose, not want, in
that order. These four lines must include the original source line that was
listed.
Now list the three hitherto unlisted lines up until they are in even
length with the original line done and then, as in Routine 3GA, keep the
four abreast of each other. List all TA action out of all lines. Use 3GA
tests to find this out.
When no charge of any kind is left, skip the lot. No need, so far as I
know at this writing, to nul them as this is just a repair job. When all
lines that were formerly active (had somatics during listing) are so
repaired, get on with the current Routine 3 Process. (At this writing,
Routine 3GA.)
The case gain you'll get on the pc from this alone will be startling-
providing the four lines you list from any single 3DXX source formerly used
are now complete.
Note: If pc confused as to which was it, the lines probably aren't
complete. Pull missed withholds on assessments, listing, items and get pc
to list further.
Note: Unless you do this repair well, the case may bog when you try to
get a goal.
Note: In case you missed it, you throw away all items ever found before
doing anything else and you oppterm no items.
On Pre-Hav levels used for 3DXX see Routine 2 above. For flow lines do
the expansion with want, oppose, not oppose, and not want as contained
herein.
General Repair
Repair of earlier auditing than those processes specifically mentioned
here is best done by Prepchecking combined with CCHs. The best Zero
question for such repair is any one of those calculated to unearth missed
withholds.
A general process on missed withholds, repetitive, will be the subject
of another HCO Bulletin and it is permissible to use this to repair all
earlier sessions in which the above-mentioned routines were not run.
In general repair you can get nice gains by Prepchecking all rudiments,
beginning and end, in a general way. You will be amazed how many have been
out on old pcs. I found one who had not answered even one havingness
command although auditors had given the pc thousands. That's thousands of
failures to answer the auditing command-and no havingness worked on this pc
until I'd discovered and remedied this.
Case repair is a task for a skilled auditor. No case will repair if it
continues to be audited badly.
If you want to be sure you can repair cases-and audit them-take an
Academy retread or apply for Saint Hill-or both.
LRH:jw.aa .rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise
MISSED WITHHOLDS,
ASKING ABOUT
Since a pc can give a motivator response to the question, "Have I
missed a withhold on you?" and since a pc's case can be worsened by
permitting the pc to get off motivators rather than overts, the following
becomes a must in asking for Missed Withholds:
"What have you done that I haven't found out about?"
Use "done", not "missed a withhold" in all missed w/h questions.
The prior confusion aspect will be found to operate also if this is
followed and the missed withhold will blow.
In short use done not "missed withhold" in rudiments and middle
rudiments questions and stress doingness rather than withholdingness.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.cden
Copyright �1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
15-22 May 1962
** 6205C15 SHSBC-144 New Training Sections
** 6205C15 SHSBC-145 New TRs
** 6205C16 SH TVD-5A Patching Up 3DXX Cases, Part I (LRH MTS-3)
** 6205C16 SH TVD-5B Patching Up 3DXX Cases, Part II.
** 6205C17 SHSBC-146 Auditing Errors
** 6205C17 SHSBC-147 Prepchecking
** 6205C22 SHSBC-150 Administration of Courses
** 6205C22 SHSBC-151 Missed Withholds
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise
MODEL SESSION CHANGE
In Beginning Rudiments the withhold question should be worded "Since the
last time I audited you have you done anything you are withholding?"
This must be answered exactly as asked. It cannot be answered with a
"They did to me" or your end command rud will go out.
In the first session the auditor gives the pc the line is omitted.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jw.bh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
23 May 1962
** 6205C23 SH TVD-6 Check on "What" Questions and Havingness Probe
(LRH MTS-4)
** 6205C23 SH TVD-7 Fish and Fumble-Checking Dirty Needles
(LRH MTS-5)
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
VERY IMPORTANT
E-METER READS
PREPCHECKING
HOW METERS GET INVALIDATED
Due to the fantastic number of instant needle reactions missed by
poorly trained auditors, it would be well to check this question out on any
preclear who has been previously audited:
"Has any auditor ever failed to find a meter read on you that you
thought should have reacted ?"
Or any version thereof.
"As an auditor have you ever deliberately ignored a significant meter
response?"
Or any version thereof.
"Have you ever invalidated an E-Meter?"
Or any version thereof.
"As a preclear have you ever successfully persuaded an auditor the
meter was wrong?"
Or any version thereof.
"Have you ever attempted to invalidate a meter read in order to keep
something secret?"
Or any version thereof.
Pcs who have routinely had meter reads missed on them become so
unconfident of the meter that they are perpetually ARC broke. Only ARC
breaks stop a meter from reacting. Therefore this unconfidence in the meter
can cancel meter reads!
It is utterly fatal to pass up an instant reaction on a pc. It
invalidates the meter and may cancel further reads.
Meters work. They work every time. Only auditors fail by failure to use
the meter reactions to guide a session. Only the auditing question or the
auditor's inability to read can be wrong.
Because of bad metering many pcs get the secret opinion that meters do
not in fact work. This is caused by sloppy auditors who miss instant reads
and fail to clean up hot questions.
If the pc knows it is hot and the auditor fails to see the meter react,
the pc thinks he can "beat the meter" and is thereafter harder to audit
because of this specific phenomenon.
This is exactly how meters get invalidated-auditors who fail to read
them and meters that aren't Mark IVs. There have been plenty of both in the
past, so clean up the above question. It's all that keeps some pcs from
winning.
And, oh yes, don't miss meter reads! And, oh very yes, be sure you are
well trained on meters!
LRH:gl.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1962
Franchise
Q and A
A great deal has been said about "Q and A-ing" but few auditors know
exactly what it is and all auditors have done it without exception up to
now.
I have just completed some work that analyses this and some drills
which educate an auditor out of it. With a better understanding of it, we
can eradicate it. Q and A means ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT A PC'S ANSWER.
A SESSION IN WHICH THE AUDITOR Qs and As IS A SESSION FULL OF ARC
BREAKS.
A SESSION WITHOUT Q and A IS A SMOOTH SESSION.
It is vital for all auditors to understand and use this material. The
gain for the pc is reduced enormously by Q and A and clearing is not just
stopped. It is prevented.
The term "Q and A" means that the exact answer to a question is the
question, a factual principle. However, it came to mean that the auditor
did what the pc did. An auditor who is "Q and A-ing" is giving session
control over to the pc. The pc does something, so the auditor also does
something in agreement with the pc. The auditor following only the pc's
lead is giving no auditing and the pc is left on "self audit".
As nearly all auditors do this, no auditing is the rule of the day.
Therefore I studied and observed and finally developed a precision analysis
of it, for lack of which auditors, although they understood Q and A,
nevertheless "Q'd and A'd".
THE Qs AND As
There are 3 Qs and As. They are:
1. Double questioning.
2. Changing because the pc changes.
3. Following the pc's instructions.
The Double Question
This occurs on Rudiment Type questions and is wrong.
This is the chief auditor fault and must be cured.
The auditor asks a question. The pc answers. The auditor asks a
question about the answer.
This is not just wrong. It is the primary source of ARC Breaks and out
rudiments. It is quite a discovery to get this revealed so simply to an
auditor as I know that if it is understood, auditors will do it right.
The commonest example occurs in social concourse. We ask Joe, "How are
you?" Joe says, "I've been ill." We say, "What with?" This may go in
society but not in an auditing session. To follow this pattern is fatal and
can wipe out all gains.
Here is a wrong example: Auditor: "How are you?" PC: "Awful." Auditor:
"What's wrong?" In auditing you just must never, never, never do this. All
auditors have been doing it. And it's awful in its effect on the pc.
Here is a right example: Auditor: "How are you?" PC: "Awful." Auditor:
"Thank you." Honest, as strange as this may seem and as much of a strain on
your social machinery as you'll find it, there is no other way to handle
it.
And here is how the whole drill must go. Auditor: "Do you have a present
time problem?" PC: "Yes" (or anything the pc says). Auditor: "Thank you, I
will check that on the meter. (Looks at meter.) Do you have a present time
problem? It's clean." or ".........It still reacts. Do you have a present
time problem? That ......That." PC: "I had a fight with my wife last
night." Auditor: "Thank you. I will check that on the meter. Do you have a
present time problem? That's clean."
The way auditors have been handling this is this way, very wrong.
Auditor: "Do you have a present time problem?" PC: "I had a fight with my
wife last night." Auditor: "What about?" Flunk! Flunk! Flunk!
The rule is NEVER ASK A QUESTION ABOUT AN ANSWER IN CLEANING ANY
RUDIMENT.
If the pc gives you an answer, acknowledge it and check it on the
meter. Don't ever ask a question about the answer the pc gave, no matter
what the answer was.
Bluntly you cannot clean rudiments easily so long as you ask a question
about a pc's answer. You cannot expect the pc to feel acknowledged and
therefore you invite ARC Breaks. Further, you slow a session down and can
wipe out all gain. You can even make the pc worse.
If you want gains in a session never Q and A on rudiments type
questions or Form type sec check questions.
Take what the pc said. Ack it. Check it on the meter. If clean, go on.
If still reacting, ask another question of a rudiments type.
Apply this rule severely. Never deviate from it.
Many new TR drills are based on this. But you can do it now.
Handle all beginning, middle and end rudiments exactly in this way.
You'll be amazed how rapidly the pc gains if you do and how easily the
rudiments go in and stay in.
In Prepchecking you can get deeper into a pc's bank by using his answer
to get him to amplify. But never while using a Rudiment or sec check type
question.
Changing because the Pc changes
This is a less common auditor fault but it exists even so.
Changing a process because the pc is changing is a breach of the
Auditor's Code. It is a flagrant Q and A.
Getting change on the pc often invites the auditor to change the
process.
Some auditors change the process every time the pc changes.
This is very cruel. It leaves the pc hung in every process run.
It is the mark of the frantic, obsessive alteris auditor. The auditor's
impatience is such that he or she cannot wait to flatten anything but must
go on.
The rule of auditing by the tone arm was the method of preventing this.
SO LONG AS YOU HAVE TONE ARM MOTION, CONTINUE THE PROCESS.
CHANGE THE PROCESS ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE RUN OUT ALL TONE ARM MOTION.
Rudiments repair processes are not processes in the full sense of the
word. But even here the rule applies if to a limited extent. The rule
applies this far: If a pc gets too much tone arm motion in the rudiments,
and especially if he or she gets little tone arm motion in the session, you
must run Prepchecking on the rudiments questions and do CCHs on the pc.
Ordinarily, if you run a rudiments process in getting the rudiments in, you
ignore the Tone Arm Motion. Otherwise you'll never get to the body of the
session and will have Q'd and A'd with the pc after all. For you will have
let the pc
"throw" the session by having out rudiments and will have let the pc avoid
the body of the session. So, ignore TA action in handling rudiments unless
you are Prepchecking, using each rudiment in turn in the body of the
session. When a rudiment is used as a rudiment, ignore TA action. When a
rudiment is used in the session body for Prepchecking, pay some attention
to TA action to be sure something is happening.
Don't hang a pc up in a thousand unflat processes. Flatten a process
before you change.
Following the Pc's Instructions
There are "auditors" who look to the pc for all their directions on how
to handle their cases.
As aberration is composited of unknowns this results in the pc's case
never being touched. If the pc only is saying what to do, then only the
known areas of the pc's case will get audited.
A pc can be asked for data on what's been done by other auditors and
for data in general on his reactions to processes. To this degree one uses
the pc's data when it is also checked on the meter and from other sources.
I myself have had it bad in this. Auditors have now and then demanded
of me as a pc instructions and directions as to how to do certain steps in
auditing.
Of course, snapping attention to the auditor is bad enough. But asking
a pc what to do, or following the pc's directions as to what to do is to
discard in its entirety session control. And the pc will get worse in that
session.
Don't consider the pc a boob to be ignored, either. It's the pc's
session. But be competent enough at your craft to know what to do. And
don't hate the pc so much that you take his or her directions as to what to
do next. It's fatal to any session.
SUMMARY
"Q and A" is slanguage. But the whole of auditing results depends upon
auditing right and not "Q and A-ing".
Of all the data above only the first section contains a new discovery.
It is an important discovery. The other two sections are old but must be
discovered sooner or later by any auditor who wants results.
If you Q and A your pc will not achieve gains from auditing. If you
really hate the pc, by all means Q and A, and get the full recoil of it.
A session without ARC Breaks is a marvellous thing to give and to
receive. Today we don't have to use ARC Break processes if we handle our
rudiments well and never Q and A.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jw.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
24-30 May 1962
** 6205C24 SHSBC-148 E-Meter Data-Instant Reads, Part I
** 6205C24 SHSBC-149 E-Meter Data-Instant Reads, Part II.
** 6205C29 SHSBC-152 Question-and-Answer Period
* * 6205C29 SHSBC-153 Security Check Prepchecking
** 6205C30 SH TVD-8A Getting Rudiments In (LRH auditing demo), Part
I
** 6205C30 SH TVD-8B Getting Rudiments In, Part II.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MAY 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise
E-METER
INSTANT READS
An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs
at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor.
The reaction of the needle may be any reaction except "nul". An instant
read may be any change of characteristic providing it occurs instantly. The
absence of a read at the end of the major thought shows it to be nul.
All prior reads and latent reads are ignored. These are the result of
minor thoughts which may or may not be restimulated by the question.
Only the instant read is used by the auditor. Only the instant read is
cleared on rudiments, What questions, etc.
The instant read may consist of any needle reaction, rise, fall,
speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta bop or any
other action so long as it occurs at the exact end of the major thought
being expressed by the auditor. If no reaction occurs at exactly that place
(the end of the major thought) the question is nul.
By "major thought" is meant the complete thought being expressed in
words by the auditor. Reads which occur prior to the completion of the
major thought are "prior reads". Reads which occur later than its
completion are "latent reads".
By "minor thought" is meant subsidiary thoughts expressed by words
within the major thought. They are caused by the reactivity of individual
words within the full words. They are ignored.
Example: "Have you ever injured dirty pigs?"
To the pc the words "you", "injured" and "dirty" are all reactive.
Therefore, the minor thoughts expressed by these words also read on the
meter.
The major thought here is the whole sentence. Within this thought are
the minor thoughts "you", "injured" and "dirty".
Therefore the E-Meter needle may respond this way: "Have you (fall)
ever injured (speeded fall) dirty (fall) pigs (fall)?"
Only the major thought gives the instant read and only the last fall
(bold-italic type in the sentence above) indicates anything. If that last
reaction was absent, the whole sentence is nul despite the prior falls.
You can release the reactions (but ordinarily would not) on each of
these minor thoughts. Exploring these prior reads is called "compartmenting
the question".
Paying attention to minor thought reads gives us laughable situations
as in the case, written in 1960, of "getting P.D.H.ed by the cat". By
accepting these prior reads one can prove anything. Why? Because Pain and
Drug and Hypnosis are minor thoughts within the major thought: "Have you
ever been P.D.H.ed by a cat?" The inexpert auditor would believe such a
silly thing had happened. But notice that if each minor thought is cleaned
out of the major thought it no longer reacts as a whole fact. If the person
on the meter had been P.D.H.ed by a cat, then only the discovery of the
origin of the whole thought would clean up the whole thought.
Pcs also think about other things while being asked questions and these
random personal restimulations also read before and after an instant read
and are ignored. Very rarely, a pc's thinks react exactly at the end of a
major thought and so confuse the issue, but this is rare.
We want the read that occurs instantly after the last syllable of the major
thought without lag. That is the only read we regard in finding a rudiment
in or out, to find if a goal reacts, etc. That is what is called an
"instant read".
There is a package rudiment question in the half truth, etc. We are
doing four rudiments in one and therefore have four major thoughts in one
sentence. This packaging is the only apparent exception but is actually no
exception. It's just a fast way of doing four rudiments in one sentence.
A clumsy question which puts "in this session" at the end of the major
thought can serve the auditor badly. Such modifiers should come before the
sentence, "In this session have you ........?"
You are giving the major thought directly to the reactive mind.
Therefore any analytical thought will not react instantly.
The reactive mind is composed of:
1. Timelessness.
2. Unknownness.
3. Survival.
The meter reacts on the reactive mind, never on the analytical mind.
The meter reacts instantly on any thought restimulated in the reactive
mind.
If the meter reacts on anything, that datum is partly or wholly unknown
to the preclear.
An auditor's questions restimulate the reactive mind. This reacts on
the meter.
Only reactive thoughts react instantly.
You can "groove in" a major thought by saying it twice. On the second
time (or third time if it is longer) you will see only the instant read at
the exact end. If you do this the prior reads drop out leaving only the
whole thought.
If you go stumbling around in rudiments or goals trying to clean up the
minor thoughts you will get lost. In sec checking you can uncover material
by "compartmenting the question" but this is rarely done today. In
rudiments, What questions, et al, you want the instant read only. It occurs
exactly at the end of the whole thought. This is your whole interest in
cleaning a rudiment or a What question. You ignore all prior and latent
reactions of the needle.
The exceptions to this rule are:
1. "Compartmenting the question", in which you use the prior reads
occurring at the exact end of the minor thoughts (as above in the pigs
sentence) to dig up different data not related to the whole thought.
2. "Steering the pc" is the only use of latent or random reads.
You see a read the same as the instant read occurring again when you are
not speaking but after you have found a whole thought reacting. You say
"there" or "that" and the pc, seeing what he or she is looking at as you
say it, recovers the knowledge from the reactive bank and gives the data
and the whole thought clears or has to be further worked and cleared.
You can easily figure-figure yourself half to death trying to grapple
with meter reads unless you get a good reality on the instant read which
occurs at the end of the whole expressed thought and neglect all prior and
latent reads except for steering the pc while he gropes for the answer to
the question you asked.
That's the whole of reading an E-Meter needle.
(Two Saint Hill lectures of 24 May 1962 cover this in full.)
LRH:jw.rd
Copyright � 1962 L. RON
HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [HCO B 21 July 1962, Instant Reads, adds to
this HCO B.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 MAY 1962
Franchise
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
Post Conspicuously IMPORTANT
in Training Office
and on Student Board
TRAINING DRILLS
MUST BE CORRECT
TRs which give an incorrect impression of how auditing is done may not
be taught.
All TRs must contain the correct data of auditing.
THIS IS VITAL. There have been two broad instances where TRs gave an
impetus to improper auditing which all but crippled the forward advance of
Scientology.
These were:
Upper Indoc TRs which caused students to conceive that the CCHs were
run without 2-way comm and with a militant, even vicious attitude. (See HCO
Bulletins of April 5 and 12,1962.)
E-Meter Needle drills which caused the student to believe that every
action of the needle was a read and prevented three-quarters of all
Scientologists from ever getting rudiments in or questions cleared (see HCO
Bulletin of May 25,1962 and 2 Saint Hill Lectures of May 24,1962).
In the matter of the CCHs, we were deprived of their full use for 5
years and extended the time in processing 25 times more than should have
been consumed for any result. This came from TRs 6-9 which are hereby
scrapped.
In the matter of the E-Meter it is probable that all auditing failures
and widely extended false ideas that Scientology did not work stem from the
improper conception of what action of the needle one cleaned up. This came
from needle reading TRs where instructors had students calling off every
activity of the needle as a read, whereas only the needle action at the
exact end of the question was used by the auditor. Auditors have thought
all needle actions were reads and tried to clean off all needle actions
except, in some cases, the end actions. This defeated the meter completely
and upset every case on which it was practised. This accounts for all
auditing failures in the past two years.
CCHs must be taught exactly as they are used in session, complete with
two-way comm-and no comm system added, please.
E-Meter drills must be used which stress only meaningful and
significant instant reads coming at the end of the full question.
Other actions of the needle may be shown to a student only if they are
properly called prior and latent reads, or meaningless action. From his
earliest training on meters the student must be trained to consider a read
only what he would take up in session and clear or use, and must be taught
that mere actions of the needle are neglected except in steering the pc,
fishing or compartmenting questions.
ONLY TEACH PROPER USE. ONLY USE TRS WHICH EXACTLY PARALLEL USE OF
SCIENTOLOGY IN SESSION AND DO NOT GIVE AN IMPRESSION THAT SOMETHING ELSE IS
USED.
I have seen clearly that Scientology's effectiveness could be destroyed
by teaching via TRs which can be interpreted by a student as the way to
audit when in fact one does not audit that way or use the data in auditing.
There are many valuable TRs. There will be many more valuable TRs. But
an invalid TR is one which gives a wrong impression of auditing. These must
be kept out of all training.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:gl.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I JUNE 1962
Sthil Form
All Academies
All HGCs
AUDITING
RUDIMENTS CHECK SHEET
(This is the only Rudiments Check Sheet
to be used in straightening up HGC pcs
or cancelling sessions on Students.)
The following check sheet should be used by Ds of P, supervisors and
instructors seeking to establish whether or not the HGC or student auditor
got the rudiments in during a session.
This check is not done in Model Session. Only the R factor is put in
and "End of Check" is given at end.
Only a British Mark IV Meter is used. Sensitivity is at 16 throughout
check.
Note:
During the first two sessions of a pc by that auditor randomity can be
expected and the auditor should not be rebuked, as it sometimes takes two
or three sessions for the rudiments to be put in solidly for an auditor and
for a pc's needle to get smooth enough to be read by a checker.
Note:
See HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962 on needle reading.
The checker should carefully repeat at least once any rudiment on which
he or she gets a read, stressing "By the end of your last session". And at
first even ask the pc when that was.
As auditing continues for several sessions, if the auditor is putting
rudiments in every session, the needle will smooth out and checks become
highly accurate. If this does not take place, then the rudiments are not
ever being put in by the auditor.
RUDIMENTS CHECK
(Repeat the leading line before each numbered item.
Mark those that give an instant read [HCO B May 25, 1962] .)
By the end of your last session had your auditor failed to find and clear
1. A half truth?
2. An untruth?
3. An effort by you to impress him (her)?
4. An effort by you to influence the E-Meter?
5. Something you were withholding?
6. An unanswered question?
7. An unanswered command?
8. An unwillingness to talk to him (her)?
9. A problem?
10. An unwillingness to be audited in that room?
LRH :dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6205C31 SHSBC-154 Value of Rudiments
** 6205C31 SHSBC-155 Middle Rudiments
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
RUDIMENTS CHECKING
It will be found that checking a pc's rudiments leads to occasional
arguments.
Rudiments checking is done after the session by another auditor, more
usually a leading auditor or instructor, using HCO Policy Letter of June 1,
1962 to find if the rudiments were in during a session just past.
The rudiments check, especially early in a pc's auditing when the
needle is rougher, or after very poor auditing, often discloses that
certain rudiments were not in during the session just past.
Two protests sometimes occur when rudiments have been found to have
been "out" on the session just past.
The first is a possible protest from the auditor who did the auditing.
The auditor sometimes claims loudly that the rudiments were in but that the
checker mysteriously threw them out and that the checker is in error. The
auditor has been known to get the pc back on the meter before friends and
show one and all that the rudiments check was in fact nul-and it has been
nul. But this does not mean the rudiments were in fact in in the session or
that the checker erred. It means only this: the auditor's TR 0, 1, 2, 3 and
4 are very weak and there was no impingement on the pc by that auditor.
Exception: a pc early in auditing or who has been badly audited doesn't get
the rudiments check question-cure: ask the check question again if you get
a read.
The second is a possible protest by the pc whose rudiments have been
found out by the checker. The pc seeks to "protect" the auditor and claims
the rudiments were "in" in session even if found "out" by the checker. This
pc is seeking to validate the stupidity of the auditor. The pc actually has
something he consciously or unconsciously wishes to hide from the auditor
and so wants the auditor to find the rudiments in, regardless of all
evidence.
Pcs have even been known to gradually raise the fingers off one can to
attempt to get a rising needle and obscure rudiments reads!
A rudiments checker is more concerned with a pc's needle getting
smoother early on in auditing than in rudiments check results. But after a
few days of sessions on a pc a rudiments checker must believe his rudiments
check, not the protests.
Students who fight instructors are, anyway, in sufficiently low tone to
be able to fight only their friends. As they come up they can have friends
and fight an actual enemy, not us.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JUNE 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
PREPCHECKING THE MIDDLE RUDIMENTS
The Routine Three Auditor (not the Prepcheck Auditor), as the first
action in finding a goal and before listing (or before the auditor adds to
list), is to prepcheck the following Zero questions in a regular prepcheck
session.
Thereafter this same prepcheck is run on the pc about every fifth R3
session.
On goals have you ever suggested anything?
On goals have you ever had anything suggested?
On goals have you ever suppressed?
On goals have you ever had anything suppressed?
On goals have you ever invalidated?
On goals have you ever had anything invalidated?
On goals have you ever failed to reveal anything?
On goals have you ever been careful of anything?
On goals have you ever told any half truths?
On goals have you ever told any untruths?
On goals have you ever influenced a meter?
On goals have you ever tried not to influence a meter?
Now the same list endings with:
On listing ditto above.
On items ditto above.
The word "goal" and the word "listing" are also cleared.
The whole thing can be preceded with the whole list above after "on
Auditing".
This whole scheme is known as "Prepchecking the Middle Ruds".
The reason for this care and the use of Middle Ruds every time you
check a goal or the pc stops listing, is because a goal can stay in with a
tick when only invalidated, but would go out if the invalidation is listed.
A goal then will go nul if the Middle Ruds are out, or a wrong goal will
get active if the Middle Ruds are out.
I have seen so many bum findings on goals that I have finally worked
out the above as a solution to being double sure.
I have seen no valid goals where the list was less than 850 goals. I
think it takes 850 goals in most cases to get goals as a subject enough
discharged to reveal a right one even though it appeared in the first
hundred and fifty.
When a wrong goal is used for further auditing the pc gets dizzy and
quite uncomfortable. When a right goal is listed it's all very easy. So you
can easily tell if you are listing a wrong one.
LRH:dr.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright �1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6206C12 SHSBC-160 How to Do Goals Assessment
** 6206C12 SHSBC-161 Middle Rudiments
** 6206C13 SH TVD-9 Checking Out a Goal, Part I
** 6206C13 SH TVD-10 Checking Out a Goal-Fish and Fumble-Part II.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JUNE 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
CHECKING NEEDLE IN RUDIMENTS CHECKS
The following types of needle characteristic are defined and published
here as a guide to all rudiments checkers.
CLEAN NEEDLE.
Responsive to instant reads only.
MEDIUM CLEAN:
Offers many prior and latent reads, but reads instantly when a question
is asked.
MEDIUM DIRTY:
Agitated throughout check but with periods of no agitation when a read
can be obtained easily. Reacts to checker's voice.
DIRTY NEEDLE.
Agitated throughout check, making reading difficult. Pc's attention
obviously dispersed.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dr.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
14-21 June 1962
** 6206C14 SHSBC-156 Future Technology
** 6206C14 SHSBC-157 Listing
** 6206C19 SHSBC-158 Do's and Don'ts of R3GA
** 6206C19 SHSBC-159 Question-and-Answer Period
** 6206C21 SHSBC-162 Model Session Revised
** 6206C21 SHSBC-163 Question-and-Answer Period
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE 1962
Sthil Students
Franchise
CenOCon
MODEL SESSION REVISED
(Amplified in Sthil Lecture June 21, 1962)
(Cancels all previous Model Session Scripts)
A new, far better Model Session has been under development for some
months and now that it is stabilized it is released as the official Model
Session.
This version 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 B May 24, 1962 [ 1 ] ).
Ask a question only until it is clear on the needle. Don't say it is
clear when it isn't. Don't ask it again if it is clear. If you couldn't
read it and don't know if it was clear or reading, say, "The read was
equivocal" and say the same question again. Use HCO B May 25, 1962 in
reading the needle.
Don't stray off Model Session into unusual questions or processes to
"get in rudiments".
If you don't get an instant read, say, "That's clear" and leave it. If
you do get an instant read, say, "That reads" and ask the second half of
the Rudiments line. Omit the second half ("What was it?") if you don't get
an instant read.
Continue to ask the rudiments same question until the read is clear.
Don't ask anything else. If a pc has a badly behaving needle, do a perfect
Model Session on pc for 2 or 3 sessions using Havingness or, better,
Prepchecking in the body of the session, and you will see the needle smooth
out. Don't expect the needle to become smooth all on one question or even
in one session. Just do an excellent Model Session and clean up whatever
instant reads and the pc will get better and better. Be careless and
unusual in cleaning ruds and the pc will feel worse.
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?" If pc says, "No",
say, "We will cover it in the rudiments.")
BEGINNING RUDIMENTS:
GLL: "What goals would you like to set for this session?"
"Are there any goals you would like to set for life or
livingness?"
Env: "Tell me if it is all right to audit in this room?" (If not,
run hav.)
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?" "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?"
MIDDLE RUDIMENTS:
"In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated,
failed to reveal, or been careful of?" "What was it?"
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?"
E-M: "In this session, have you deliberately tried to influence the
E-Meter?" "How did you try to influence the E-Meter?"
? 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 or done anything I have
failed to find out about?" "What was it?"
Aud: "In this session, have you been critical of me?" "What have you
done?"
Env: "In this session, was the room all right?" (If question reacts
or can squeeze denotes down havingness, run hav.)
G/g: "Have you made any part of your goals for this session?" "Have
you made any other gains in this session that you would care to
mention?"
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?"
"Here it is. END OF SESSION. Has this session ended for you?" (If pc
says, "NO", repeat, "END OF SESSION." If session still not ended, say,
"You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.")
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."
Most flagrant errors that can be made:
1. Not being expert on Meter.
2. Fumbling with script, not knowing Model Session.
3. Asking a question a second time when it was clear the first
time.
4. Not asking the question a second time when it read on the
Meter.
5. Not saying you could not tell what the read was when you
couldn't. (If you couldn't you say it again.)
6. Failing to get in the R factor by telling pc what you are going
to do at each new step.
7. Doing what the pc suggests.
8. Adding unusual questions or remarks or making sudden irrelevant
statements.
PATTER ON RUDIMENTS
(Question) "That reads. What was it. There, that (steering pc by
needle)."
(Question) "That's clean." (Go to next question without adding "What
was it?")
After a question gets an instant read:
Whatever pc says in answer, then say, "I'll check that on the Meter,"
and ask the same question again.
If question is clean and then pc answers, do not check it on Meter.
Just ack and
go to next question.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.bh
Copyright �1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[ This HCO B is changed by HCO B 4 July 1962, Bulletin Changes, page 101,
and is amended and canceled by HCO B 4 March 1964, Class II Model Session,
page 398. ]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JUNE 1962
Franchise
Sthil
PREPCHECKING
(Correction of HCO Bulletin 1 Mar 1962
and to be included as a change in all
Theory Checking of that HCO Bulletin)
The Withhold System of When, All, Appear, Who must not be applied to
the overt found for the formulation of the What Question. This System is
only applied to the earliest overt one can discover on the chain opened by
the What Question.
The exact Prepcheck procedure becomes as follows:
1. Ask the Zero Question. (See HCO Policy Letters and Information
Letters for Sec Check Forms. These are "Zero Questions".)
2. If the Meter gives an Instant Read (see HCO Bulletin May 25,
1962 for Instant Read) then the auditor says, "That reads. What
have you done?"
3. The pc gives the overt. (If the pc doesn't, the auditor can
coax or demand until an overt is given, saying such as, "But you
must have done something because the Meter reads-What have you
done?" until the pc does give the overt on the subject of the Zero
Question. A pc well in session will give it. (Note: A severe ARC
Break can cause a Meter to react on a Zero Question. Just ask if
there's an ARC Break if you suspect it and ask the Zero again.)
4. The auditor says, "I will check that on the Meter" and reads
the Zero Question again. If the Zero Question still gives an
instant read the auditor says, "I will formulate a broader
question."
5. The auditor forms and tests What Questions until one gives an
instant read the same as the Zero Question did.
6. Addressing the pc directly, the auditor asks the What Question
he has composed and verified by Meter test.
7. The pc is permitted to answer the What Question, giving as many
incidents in a general way as he cares to. He is never cut off
short. Let him talk as long as the pc can give overts.
8. The auditor asks if there are any earlier incidents. The
auditor, without a Meter, gets the pc down the track until the pc
says that's the earliest.
9. The auditor now applies the Withhold System, When, All, Appear,
Who, to this earliest incident, going through When, All, Appear,
Who several times.
10. The auditor now says, "I will check the What Question on the
Meter," and does so, asking it and watching for a read.
11. If there is an instant read, the auditor repeats steps 8, 9 and
10 above until there is no instant read on the What Question.
12. When the What Question reads nul the auditor says, "That is
clean. I will now do the Middle Rudiments." Note: Various end
rudiments can be added to Middle Ruds in extreme cases of pc ARC
Breaks.
13. The auditor checks the Middle Rudiments and gets them
clean.
14. The What Question is tested again. If clean, the auditor says,
"It is clean." And then reads the Zero Question. If it is clean
(gives no instant read), the auditor goes on to the next Zero
Question. If it is not clean the auditor repeats steps 4 onward to
14 until the Zero Question is clean, at which time he goes to the
next Zero Question on the list.
------------------
All What Questions are asked to expose and clean a chain of Overts. If
the Zero didn't clean at once originally, there is a Chain of such overts.
Therefore the What Question must be asked so that it can be answered with a
number of overts if they exist.
It is fatal not to permit the pc to fully answer the What Question to
his complete satisfaction before shoving at him with demands for earlier
material. To cut off his effort to give several incidents is to leave him
with missed withholds and a probable ARC Break.
Don't ask the Withhold System of When, All, Appear, Who, on any late
incidents. Use this system only to blow the earliest incident the pc can
easily recall. This opens Up earlier track if any exists. And if none
exists it blows the whole chain.
The pc can experience the effect of collapsing track if the auditor
applies the Withhold System, When, All, Appear, Who, to an incident late
(closer to pt) on the chain. Or if the auditor won't let the pc fully
answer the What Question when found.
THE WHAT QUESTION
The formulation of the What Question is done as follows:
The pc gives an overt in response to the Zero which does not clean the
needle of the Instant Read on the Zero.
The auditor uses that overt to formulate his What Question.
Let us say the Zero was "Have you ever stolen anything?" The pc says,
"I have stolen a car." Testing the Zero on the Meter, the auditor says, "I
will check that on the Meter. Have you ever stolen anything?" (He mentions
nothing about cars, Heaven forbid!) If he still gets a read, the auditor
says (as in 4 above), "I will formulate a broader question." And, as in 5
above, says, to the Meter, "What about stealing cars? What about stealing
vehicles? What about stealing other people's property?" The auditor gets
the same Zero Question read on "What about stealing other people's
property?" so he writes this down on his report. All of 5 above is done
with no expectancy of the pc saying a thing.
The auditor does it all in a testing tone of voice with a testing
attitude.
Now in 6 above, as he has his question, the auditor sits up, looks at
the pc and says, meaning it to be answered (but without accusation), "What
about stealing other people's property?"
Now, as in 7 above the pc will probably mention the car, the auditor
gives a half acknowledgment (encouraging mutter), the pc then recalls an
umbrella and then a dressing gown and seems to think that's it. The auditor
now fully acknowledges all of these with an "All right!" or a "Thank you,
that's fine." The auditor does this only when the pc appears to be sure
that's it.
And then the auditor goes into 8 above with, "Now are there any earlier
incidents of stealing other people's property?" and 7 and 8 are played out
until the pc finally says something like, "Well, I stole a mirror from a
little girl who lived in our block, and that really is the first time." The
auditor now does 9. The pc with track opened by the
When, All, Appear, Who Questions, is again asked, as in 10, "I will check
that on the Meter. What about stealing other people's property? That still
reads. Is there an earlier incident (as in 8)?" The pc recalls one, saying,
"I almost forgot. In fact I had forgotten it. I used to steal my father's
car keys when I was three!" The auditor says (as in 9), "When was that?"
"Is there any more to that?" "What might have appeared there?" "Who failed
to find out about it?" asking these four questions in order and getting an
answer each time, asking them again and perhaps again. The auditor then
says, "I will check this on the Meter (as in 10). What about stealing other
people's property? That's clean." And goes on into 12.
The auditor says, "I will now do the Middle Rudiments" (HCO Bulletin
June 23, 1962), cleans them and again says, "I will check the What
Question. What about stealing other people's property? That's clean. " And
immediately does the Zero Question asking, "Have you ever stolen anything?
That's clean. Thank you." And then asks the next Zero Question on the list.
Note: The pc can go back track as far as he likes without auditor
interference.
------------------
TESTING WHATS
To test any auditor's auditing, and to be sure all is well with a field
or HGC pc, the What Questions should be checked out on the pc by another
auditor and the pc turned back to the auditor to get them flat. Don't test
Zeros for flatness. Increasing responsibility will unflatten Zeros. Only
What Questions become forever nul if done right. So only test What
Questions for nul reads. A What Question left alive can really raise
mischief, as it constitutes a series of missed withholds.
So test all What Questions formulated for that pc after an intensive or
close to its end to be sure. And be sure every What Question used is
written legibly on the auditor's report.
------------------
This improvement in Prepchecking will increase speed, save ARC Breaks
and make an easier and more thorough job of it.
Use this version of Prepchecking for all Theory and Practical tests and
drills and on all pcs.
Prepchecking still combines with the CCHs more or less session for
session.
Form 3 and Form 6A are the most productive Zero Question Lists. For
auditors, "The last two pages of the Joburg (Form 3) and Form 6A" is a
required prerequisite for higher classes.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JUNE 1962
Franchise
CenOCon
E-METER STANDARDS
The Mark IV E-Meter is just sensitive enough at sensitivity 16 to get a
pc's rudiments in so the pc knows it and to check out a goal.
No earlier British or American meter is this sensitive.
The use of a meter which does not so register will not detect out
rudiments and will not find a goal.
A pc audited on a meter even slightly less sensitive than this will
have answers to rudiments questions although the meter says they are clean.
Therefore the pc is nerved up with missed withholds and you get an ARC
breaky or unsatisfactory session.
This is the most fruitful source of "dissatisfied" or "difficult" pcs.
They are being audited with rudiments out when an insensitive meter
indicates the rudiments "clean".
The needle gets dirtier. It becomes hard to read the meter. And, due to
lack of sensitivity alone, the meter will find no goals. And as the needle
is wilder, goals are even less likely.
Model Session and havingness sessions which are properly run by the
auditor will result in an even, clean needle. But if the meter is bad, even
when auditing is good, the needle will get wilder as the ruds are actually
out even when they seem to be in.
You are doing earlier auditing and Prepchecking to clean up the
wildness of a needle so Routine 3GA can be run. If auditing is good and the
needle is getting worse, there's something wrong with the meter or the
operator's meter reading.
Only the Mark IV shows if a rudiment is clean. All others ruin sessions
and needles and give you ARC breaky pcs.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:gl.bh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
26 June 1962
** 6206C26 SHSBC-164 E-Meter Quality
** 6206C26 SHSBC-165 Prepchecking
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JUNE 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise
RUNDOWN ON ROUTINE 3GA
3GA has cleared or is clearing everyone on whom it has been run. It's a
clean sweep. These include several famous rough cases so this one is really
there.
Procedure is to get a goal and then make awful sure it is the goal. A
goals list is at least 850 long and shows, if complete, no TA action when
nulling (aside from a slight drift of the TA normal in any session). Thirty
or forty goals that persisted in and didn't go out are then separately
listed and done at sensitivity 16. You have to catch this point in the
session.
Then the goal found is checked. This is done by giving the pc a full
prepcheck on the Middle Rudiments. Then the Mid Ruds are also done against
the goal itself with great care. If the goal remains in solidly ticking
every time except when read against a swooping needle, that's it. It's best
for another auditor to do the checkout.
Then the lines are phrased up as per HCO Information Letter of May 10,
1962. A negative goal can be phrased "Not want the goal quote, etc", for
example, "Who or what would not want the goal quote not to be detected",
"Would oppose the goal quote not to be detected", etc.
Now here's an important datum. As many as twenty-five hundred items per
line, or ten thousand items in all, have been listed before a needle went
free on every line. This was Halpern. Others are of similar length. It
won't do any good to stop short and in fact would lose everything; you have
to list to free needle on the first goal found.
The goal doesn't vanish utterly during listing. The tick read of it
transfers off to one or another of the lines in turn.
Ten thousand items means about 200 hours of auditing at the slowpoke
rate of 100 items found per two hour session.
So you see there's considerable listing to be done, and also it's fatal
to list a bum goal.
The cure for listing a bum goal is just to find the right goal and list
it.
Listing a bum goal results in a pc's getting sick and dizzy. The bank
goes solid after a dozen hours of listing and the pc has motion sensations
or the winds of space.
So we really got it. What we need is accurate auditing to find the pc's
goal in the first place and accurate checkout to make sure that is the
goal, and then you've got easier clearing than we have ever had and you've
got 100 per cent clearing.
More and more pcs are getting into listing here and it's all going by
the book.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JUNE 1962
Franchise
DIRTY NEEDLES
How to Smooth Out Needles
Quite often a pc is found whose needle is jerky, random, gives many
prior and latent reads and goes into small scratchy patterns or wild,
continuing rock slams.
Such a needle is hard to read-and such a pc is a long way out of
session a lot of the time.
An auditor, seeing such a needle, and faced with the task of reading
the instant read through all these prior and latents and scratchy patterns,
tends to think in terms of heroic measures. It is "obvious" that this pc
has W/Hs, Missed W/Hs, overts and secrets to end all reactive banks and
that the thing one ought to do is pick each one of these random needle
reactions up as soon as possible. BUT when you try to do this you find the
needle gets even more confused. It reads something all the time!
An extreme case of a dirty, random needle is not solved by any ''fish
and fumble" or heroic measures.
The pc's needle reacts that way because of no-confidence, which induces
a sort of auto-control in session which induces a dirty needle. Ability to
predict equals confidence.
The thing to do is give this pc about 3 sessions of rudiments and
havingness just Model Session severely with no Q and A or added chit-chat.
The sessions should be each one about one hour long.
All one does is do Model Session, getting the rudiments in carefully
exactly by the textbook. Use Model Session, HCO Bulletin 23 June 1962. Use
instant reads only as per HCO Bulletin 25th May 1962. And avoid any Q and A
as per HCO Bulletin 24 May 1962, "Double Questioning".
Use Middle Rudiments somewhere during the havingness session.
By doing this perfect, predictable textbook auditing session three
times on the pc, most of these prior and latent reads will drop out and the
needle will look much cleaner. Why? Because the pc is off auto or in
session.
You can make a pc's needle get dirty and react to many odd thoughts by
the pc by doing the following:
1. Try to clean off prior reads and avoid instant reads in getting
ruds in (going against HCO Bulletin 25 May 1962).
2. Use a scruffy and ragged session pattern (going against HCO
Bulletin 23 June 1962).
3. Double question any rudiments question (as per HCO Bulletin 24
May 1962).
The pc's needle, even if very clean at the start and loose, will
tighten up, develop patterns and dirt if an auditor fails to use a textbook
session. This includes raw meat
that never heard of a textbook session. Raw meat particularly requires a
severely textbook session. Don't think because they're new they won't know.
And too much coffee shop type auditing can rough a needle.
A pc who has become unwilling to be audited is best cured by three
textbook flawless sessions of havingness as above. Don't plunge for what is
wrong. Just establish a standard of excellence the pc can predict. And up
will come the pc's confidence.
After the three sessions you can prepcheck or fish and fumble and get
things really clean. And providing you continue to use a textbook session,
the pc will get better and better.
If a pc still has a dirty needle with many prior reads after an auditor
has audited that pc three sessions, then we can conclude that that auditor
1. Is not using HCO Bulletin 25 May 1962 in reading a meter.
2. Is not handling questions as per HCO Bulletin 24 May 1962, and
3. Is not using Model Session HCO Bulletin 23 June 1962.
There are no difficult pcs now. There are only auditors who do not give
textbook sessions.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
28 June 1962
** 6206C28 SHSBC-166 Rudiments
** 6206C28 SHSBC-167 Question-and-Answer-Period
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
ARC PROCESS
The ARC Straight wire process now used in training is the old
Recall a time.........
This is hereby changed for the following reason:
Students and co-audit pcs go out of session when permitted to answer
only "yes" to the command, as two-way comm is deleted and the definition of
"In Session" is violated.
With the advent of Repetitive Rudiments the student should be otherwise
(and better) trained on a repetitive process.
A second question is thereby added to the ARC process and any co-audit
process that can be answered merely "yes".
The new process:
RECALL A COMMUNICATION. WHAT WAS IT?
RECALL SOMETHING REAL. WHAT WAS IT?
RECALL AN EMOTION. WHAT WAS IT?
Do not use the older versions or any process that can be answered only
with "yes" without adding the second question.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd.bh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B is corrected by 27 September 1968, Issue II, ARC Straight Wire,
Volume VI-26 1.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JULY 1962
Franchise
REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS
How to Get the Rudiments In
I am in a hurry to get this bulletin to you and to get it into use for
all except CCH sessions.
For a long time I've been urging you to get rudiments in. For the past
ten days I have been working hard to analyze and resolve why you sometimes
cannot.
Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the presence of a
monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go gradiently dull in the presence
of out rudiments. If you fail to get one IN then the outness of the next
one reads faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you'll miss the
rudiment's outness and there goes your session.
To get over these difficulties, I have developed a Model Session that
can be used, in the rudiments, as a series of repetitive processes.
Then, with this, I've developed Repetitive Rudiments.
The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks the rudiments
question of the pc until the pc says there is no further answer. At this
point the auditor says, "I will check that on the meter." And asks the
question again. If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to
the answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again lays the
meter aside and asks the question of the pc as above until the pc has no
answer. The auditor again says, "I will check that on the meter" and does
so.
The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is clean of any
instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962 for Instant Read).
The cycle:
1. Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no
answer.
2. Consult meter for a hidden answer.
3. If meter reads use it to steer ("that" "that" each time the
meter flicks) the pc to the answer.
4. Lay aside the Meter and do I and 2 and 3.
The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question.
One does not "bridge out" or use "two more commands". When the meter
test of the question gets no instant read, the auditor says, "Do you agree
that that is clean?" covertly looking at the needle as he or she says
"clean". If the question really isn't clean, there will be an instant read
on "Do you agree the question is clean?" If there is such a read, do 1, 2
and 3 again.
The trick here is the definition of "In Session". If the pc is in
session the meter will read. If the pc is partially out the meter will read
poorly, and the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get
missed. But with the pc in session the meter will read well for the
auditor. Thus you get the pc to talk to the auditor about his own case, the
definition of "in session", before consulting the meter by using the
repetitive process.
What a relief to the pc to have his rudiments in! And goodbye ARC
breaks and no auditing results!
Use this system always on the beginning rudiments for every type of
session.
Use this system on the Middle Rudiments in a havingness and sometimes
on the Prepcheck type of session. But seldom on a Routine 3 (goals) type of
session.
Use this system always on the End Rudiments of a havingness session. Do not
use it on the End Rudiments of a Prepcheck or Routine 3 type of session
unless the session has been full of screaming pc (which with this system it
won't be).
Havingness Type Session:
Repetitive Rudiments System on Beginning, Middle and End Rudiments.
Prepcheck Type Session:
Repetitive Rudiments on Beginning and sometimes Middle Rudiments. Ask
End Rudiments against meter as in step 2 and 3 of cycle (Fast Checking, see
below).
Routine 3 Type Session:
Use Repetitive Rudiments on Beginning Rudiments. Use 2 and 3 only (Fast
Checking) for Middle and End Rudiments unless Session very rough.
So that's where Repetitive auditing processes wind up. Addressed to
rudiments!
A tip-you can ARC break a session by overuse of Middle Rudiments on
Routine 3 processes. Never use the Middle Rudiments just because the pc is
talking about his or her own case. That's the definition of In Session. Use
Middle Rudiments in Routine 3 when you have not had any meter needle
response on three goals read three times (not one goal read disturbed the
needle). Then get your Middle Rudiments in and cover the first consecutive
nul goal above (the three that gave no response). Don't use Middle Ruds
just because 3 goals went nul. Only if no reading of a goal disturbed the
needle for three goals in a row. Also use Middle Ruds when the pc "can't
think of any more" in listing of goals or items. Don't use every time you
shift lists now. Only if the pc "can't list more".
--------------
In Prepchecking use Middle Ruds Repetitively after 3 Zero questions
have each been nul on a list of Zeros and recheck those Zeros if Middle
Ruds were out. Use Middle Ruds after each What question was nulled and
check the What question again and rework it if alive. Also check the Zero
questions if a What went nul. If a Zero advanced to a What, both What and
Zero must be checked for nullness and found nul before leaving them.
One Middle Rudiments use may suffice for both unless one was found
still alive after the Middle Ruds were gotten in. Repair it and recheck if
so.
--------------
FAST CHECKING
A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of steps 2 and 3 of the
cycle done over and over.
Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up only what
reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One does this as many times
as is necessary to get a clean needle. But one still says, "Do you agree
that that is clean?" and catches up the disagreement by getting the
additional answers. When both the question and the agreement are seen to
be clean, the question is left.
In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, "THAT STILL READS." That's a flunk.
Say, "There's another read here."
-----------------
You cannot easily handle a transistor type meter more sensitive than a
Mark IV. The needle would be so rapid in its swings you would find it
nearly impossible to keep it centred. Therefore a more sensitive meter was
no answer. The TR 1 of many auditors lacks any great impingement. And this
is remediable only when "altitude" can also be remedied. There had to be a
better answer to getting out rudiments to read better on a Meter for all
auditors and all pcs. Repetitive Rudiments is the best answer to this.
(Note: I am indebted to Mary Sue, when I was working on this problem,
for calling my attention back to this system which I originally developed
for Sec Checking and where it worked well.)
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :dr.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise
REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING
As the Prepchecking we have been doing is a complicated skill and as
recent rudiments developments open the door to simplified handling of
overts, you may lay aside all versions of previous Prepchecking and
Security Checking and substitute the following.
This is in the interests of improvement of auditing and keeping pcs
from being enturbulated by unskilled auditing. The version herein is far
easier to train students into as it uses the same actions as Repetitive
Rudiments.
REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING
We will still use the term "Prepchecking" and do all Prepchecking by
repetitive command.
We will refer to the older version as "Prepchecking by the Withhold
System" and abandon it as of this date as too complicated and too
susceptible to restimulation of pcs in semi-skilled hands.
THE AUDITING PROCEDURE
We handle any Zero question exactly as in repetitive rudiments, (HCO
Bulletin of July 2, 1962).
The session is started exactly as per Model Session, HCO Bulletin June
23, 1962, (or as may be amended). A Mark IV Meter is used (using earlier
meters on Prepchecking can mean disaster as they miss withholds).
The auditor then announces for the body of the session, that a
Prepcheck will be done on such and such a subject or Form.
The auditor then takes an already prepared Form (such as Form 3, 6A,
Prepcheck Mid Ruds, Goals Prepcheck Form [not yet released] ).
STEP ONE
Without now looking at the Meter, the auditor asks the Form question
repetitively until the preclear says that's all, there are no more answers.
STEP TWO
The auditor then says, "I will check that on the meter" and does so,
watching for the Instant Read (HCO Bulletin May 25, 1962).
If it reads, the auditor says, "That reads. What was it?" (and steers
the pc's attention by calling each identical read that then occurs).
"There... That... That . . ." until the pc spots it in his bank and gives
the datum.
STEP THREE
The auditor then ignores the meter and repeats Step One above. Then
goes to Step Two, etc.
STEP FOUR
When there is no read on Step Two above, the auditor says, "Do you
agree that that is nul?" The auditor watches for an Instant Read on this
and if there is an Instant Read on it, does Step Two above, then Step
Three. This gives a double check on the flatness of a question.
This is all there is to Repetitive Prepchecking as a system. Anything added
in the way of more auditor questions is destructive to the session. Be sure
not to Q and A (HCO Bulletin of May 24, 1962).
Be sure your TR4 is excellent in that you understand (really, no fake)
what the pc is saying and acknowledge it (really, so the pc gets it) and
return the pc to session. Nothing is quite as destructive to this type of
auditing as bad TR4.
THE ZERO QUESTIONS TIME LIMITER
There must be a time limit on all Zero questions. Although it says,
"Have you ever stolen anything?" the auditor must preface this with a TIME
LIMITER such as "In this lifetime . . ." "In auditing. . ." or whatever
applies. Form 3 (the Joburg) has to be prefaced with "In this lifetime . .
." on every question. Form 6A, as it speaks of preclears, etc, is already
limited in Time.
In Prepchecking the Middle Ruds, use "In auditing . . ." before each
question or other appropriate limitations.
The Zero must not swing the pc down the whole track as Middle Rudiments
then become unanswerable and a fruitful source of missed withholds.
MIDDLE RUDIMENTS
In Repetitive Prepchecking the Middle Rudiments can be Fast Checked
(HCO Bulletin of July 2,1962), (using the package question "In this session
is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or
been careful of?" If one of the four reads, use it singly to clean it in
the same worded question and do the remainder of the Middle Ruds singly:
"In this session is there anything you have failed to reveal?").
Use the Middle Rudiments Fast Checked every time you clean a Zero
Question, whether the pc had answers for it or not.
PREPCHECKING THE MIDDLE RUDIMENTS
To begin or end a series of sessions (such as an intensive), Prepcheck
also the Middle Rudiments.
In such Prepchecking the Middle Ruds, for havingness sessions, the
Zeros are as follows:
"Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have suppressed?"
"Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have invalidated?"
"Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have failed to
reveal?" "Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have been
careful of?"
To these standards add, in the same question form, "suggested" "failed
to suggest" "revealed" "told any half truths" "told any untruths" "damaged
anyone" "influenced the E-Meter" "failed to answer a question" "failed to
answer a command" and "Since I have been auditing you have you shifted your
attention?" Flatten off with O/W as below.
O/W ASSISTS
As a Prepcheck by form and even beginning rudiments are not calculated
to handle a pc who is very distraught before the start of session by reason
of upsets in life (howling PTPs accompanied by misemotion) or who is too
ill physically to settle into auditing, an earlier rudiment immediately
after start of session can be used. This is general O/W (Overt-Withhold):
"What have you done?" "What have you withheld?"
These are run alternately. This is never run on a terminal (i.e. What
have you done to George? etc). Only the general type command is now used.
When the pc is much better, go into the usual rudiments.
(Note: This is, by the way, the best repetitive process for an assist.)
This is run to a nul needle on both questions. If either gives an Instant
Read, continue to run both until both are nul, much as in steps One, Two,
Three and Four of Repetitive Prepchecking.
When used to flatten off a Prepcheck on the Middle Rudiments, whether
for Prepchecking or for goals type or ordinary Repetitive Prepchecking, the
O/W command wording is as follows:
"Since I have been auditing you, what have you done?" "Since I have
been auditing you, what have you withheld?"
Both must be nul to conclude the process. If either is found alive on
the needle, run both.
When used to begin a session, or when used to Prepcheck the Middle
Ruds, O/W must be followed by a Fast Check of the Mid Ruds.
SUMMARY
This type of Prepchecking-Repetitive Prepchecking-is more easily done
and more thorough than Prepchecking by the Withhold System and its earlier
forefather Security Checking. It replaces both of these.
In view of the fact that the same system is used for Repetitive
Rudiments (HCO Bulletin of July 2, l962), by learning one, the student also
learns the other, thus saving a lot of time in study and training.
Repetitive Prepchecking replaces former auditing requirements for Class
IIa and is the Class II skill.
It should be thoroughly instilled in the auditor that extra doingness
by the auditor is detractive from the system and that every additive is a
liability, not required in the system and liable to upset the pc. It is a
must that the auditor be very capable with TR4 and that the auditor makes
no attempt to shut off routine pc originations as the intensity of "In
Sessionness" generated by modern Model Session used with Repetitive
Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking is such as to make the ARC breaks
quite shattering to the pc if TR4 is bad.
If Repetitive Prepchecking is run right, with good metering, the only
remaining source of missed withholds is the inadvertent withhold caused by
bad TR4. (The pc said it but the auditor didn't understand it.)
This bulletin culminates three years of exhaustive research into the
formation of Model Session, Rudiments and the handling of overts, and
overcoming the limitations of the auditor and student in handling sessions.
This, coming with the broad success of Routine 3GA, rounds out auditing
from raw meat to clear for all cases capable of speech. These techniques
represent a data span of 13 years and a general research of 32 years.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B is changed by HCO B 4 July 1962, Bulletin Changes, which is on
the following page.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JULY 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise
BULLETIN CHANGES
(Changes in Model Session
HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962, HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962
and HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962)
(Note: Make changes on your copies of HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962, HCO
Bulletin June 23, 1962 and HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962 so that students
passing these bulletins do not have to give the outdated data in their
Theory Examination of HCO Bulletins May 3, 1962, June 23, 1962 and July 3,
1962. This HCO Bulletin July 4, 1962 is to be passed also in Theory as it
gives Why.)
HAVINGNESS RUD
The Room Rudiment is dropped from Model Session in the Beginning
Rudiments but remains in the End Rudiments.
Abolish its use in Beginning Rudiments. Retain its use in End Rudiments
in all HGCs, Academies, staff auditing and the Saint Hill Special Briefing
Course.
The Room Rudiment spoils the evenness of Repetitive Rudiments and as
often as not takes the pc's attention out of session.
MISSED WITHHOLDS
The question: "In this Session have you thought, said or done anything
I have failed to find out?" is to be used in all Model Sessions as a Random
Rudiment to be used in strict accordance with HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962,
"ARC Breaks-Missed Withholds". It remains also as part of End Rudiments.
The word "about" is deleted from the end rudiment question as it is
unnecessary.
Change your copy of HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962 to give the above as the
standard command.
This is used whenever the pc starts to get tense or tries to explain
urgently. Don't let the pc get into a full ARC Break. See it coming. But if
pc does get into a heavy ARC Break it is of course used. It means the
auditor was slow observing.
Its use is always repetitive as in any other Repetitive Rudiment.
The "said" is added to prevent upset from poor TR4.
OVERT/WITHHOLD
At the start of any session, after starting the session, General O/W
may be used on any pc who is feeling ill or misemotional before session
beginning by reason of heavy restimulation or acute PTPs. This is run only
until the pc feels better and has cycled to present time. It is not run
until both questions are nul (as given in HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962).
Use the cyclic type ending on the process.
Follow this action by Repetitive asking of the Missed Withhold Rudiment
above to prevent a missed withhold from occurring.
END WORDS
The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an ARC broken
pc and it can operate on the last word (thought minor) only of a question.
Whereas the question (thought major) is actually nul.
A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the
charge on those single words can be made known and the question turned
around to avoid the last word's charge.
Example: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"
The word "difficulties", said to the pc by itself gives an Instant
Read. Remedy: Test "Difficulties". If it reads as itself then change the
question to: "Concerning your difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?"
This will only react when the pc is unwilling to do so.
Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves occurs mainly
in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to groove in the question to a
"thought major". With good TR1, the END WORDS read only when the question
is asked.
IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists strongly that
the question is nul. Then test the end word for lone reaction and turn the
question about to make it end with another end word (question not to have
words changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test it for
Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question (thought major) then of
course, it is not nul and should be answered.
CLEAN
Change HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962 to read: Do not pay attention to any
reaction consequent to asking "Do you agree that that is clean?"
Trying to handle a reaction to this second question is too involved for
ordinary handling. If the main question reads nul, ignore a read on "Do you
agree that is clean?"
DOUBLE CLEANING
"Cleaning" a rudiment that has already registered nul gives the pc a
Missed Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc
has no answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. This is quite serious. Once
you see a Rudiment is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul
is to leave the pc baffled-he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.aap.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JULY 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
COACHLESS TRAINING
USE OF A DOLL
As it is better in the absence of good coaches to do many drills (but
not TR0, 1, 2, 3, 4) with the student solo, mocking up the session as he
goes, we are using this at Saint Hill.
A student, many of whom feel the emptiness of the empty chair he or she
is facing, should make or buy and use a doll.
The doll need not be elaborate but should be at least a foot tall,
preferably two feet.
The drills of spitting out rapidly Model Session Repetitive Rudiments,
Fast Rudiments, Listing, Nulling, etc, are at this time being done
Coachless and great progress is being made.
But the empty chair "gets" some auditors. Therefore the doll. Dolls
were used in training first in 1957.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:gl.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
10 - 12 July 1962
** 6207C10 SHSBC-168 Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive
Prepchecking,
Part I
** 6207C10 SHSBC-169 Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive
Prepchecking,
Part II
** 6207C12 SHSBC-174 Meter Reading
** 6207C12 SHSBC-175 Meter Training
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 JULY 1962
Sthil Students
CenOCon
All Sthil Grads
URGENT
AUDITING ALLOWED
I want every auditor auditing to be perfect on a meter. To be otherwise
can be catastrophic.
By perfect is meant:
1. Auditor never tries to clean a clean read;
2. Auditor never misses a read that is reacting.
One mistake on M.S. or TRs may not ruin a session. One mistake on a
meter read can ruin a session. That gives you the order of importance of
accurate never-miss meter reading.
All bad auditing results have now been traced to inaccuracy in meter
reading. Other aspects of a session should be perfect. But if the session,
even vaguely following a pattern session, comes to grief, IT IS ONLY METER
READING ACCURACY THAT IS AT FAULT.
I have carefully ferreted this fact out. There is only one constant
error in sessions that produce no results or poor results; inaccurate meter
reading. This is also true for student and veteran auditors alike.
When an auditor starts using unusual solutions, he or she was driven to
them by the usual solution not working. The usual solution always works
unless the meter needle reading is inaccurate.
If an auditor is using unusual solutions, then THAT AUDITOR'S METER
READING IS INACCURATE. Given this, consequent ARC breaks and failures drive
the auditor to unusual solutions.
A D of P who has to dish out unusual solutions has auditors who are
missing meter reads.
Meter reading must be perfect every session. What is perfect?
1. Never try to clean a read that is already clean.
2. Never miss an instant reaction of the needle.
If you try to clean a clean rudiment, the pc has the missed withhold of
nothingness. The auditor won't accept the origination or reply of
nothingness. This can cause a huge ARC break, worse than missing a
somethingness. A nothingness is closer to a thetan than somethingness.
If you miss an instant reaction you hang the pc with a missed withhold
and the results can be catastrophic.
If you fumble and have to ask two or three times, the read damps out,
the meter can become inoperative on that pc for the session.
If you miss on one rudiment, the next even if really hot can seem to be nul
by reason of ARC break.
A meter goes nul on a gradient scale of misses by the auditor. The more
misses, the less the meter reads.
Meter perfection means only accurate reading of the needle on instant
reads. It is easily attained.
An auditor should never miss on a needle reaction. To do so is the
basis of all unsuccessful sessions. Whatever else was wrong with the
session, it began with bad meter reading.
Other auditing actions are important and must be done well. But they
can all be overthrown by one mistake in metering.
1. Never clean a clean needle.
2. Never miss a read.
Unless metering perfection is attained by an auditor, he or she will
continue to have trouble with preclears.
The source of all upset is the missed withhold.
The most fruitful source of missed withholds is poor metering.
The worst TR 4 is failure to see that there is nothing there or failing
to find the something that is there on an E-Meter.
This is important: Field Auditors, Academies and HGCs are all being
deprived of the full benefit of processing results by the one read missed
out of the 200 that were not missed. It is that critical!
A good pro, by actual inspection, is at this moment missing about eight
or nine reads per session, calling one that is clean a read and failing to
note a read that read.
This is the 5 to 1 ratio noted between HGC auditing and my auditing.
They miss a few. I don't. If I don't miss meter reads, and don't have ARC
breaky pcs, why should you? With modern session pattern and processes well
learned, all you have to acquire is the ability to never miss on reading a
needle. If I can do it you can.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 JULY 1962
Sthil Students
CenOCon
GOALS PREPCHECK FORM
ROUTINE 3GA
It is mandatory that this form be completed after a goal has been found
and before any listing is begun. ALL DONE AT SENS 16 on a Mark IV Meter.
_________________________________________ ________________________
Pc's Name Date
_________________________________________
Organization
GOAL FOUND
A. MODEL SESSION REP. RUDS: Auditor_______________________
W/Hs______________________ PTP______________________
B. READ goal to pc: Reacts____________ Reacts______________
Reacts____________
C. READ GOAL ONCE AND THEN ONE OF THE LAST 30 goals that stayed in well,
back and forth, until none of the long list goals react and the goal
stays in at Sensitivity 16.
LIST of 30 All Nul___________________
READ GOAL TO PC: Reacts___________ Reacts______________
Reacts___________
D. Is the Instant Read exactly at the end of the last word in the goal
or does it occur across the last word? If it occurs at the end of the
last word consistently, neither prior nor latent, continue the check.
If the read is prior or latent and not exactly at the end of the last
word, even when the goal is read several times, do not go on with this
check. Do not try to use the fragment to compile a new goal. Continue
goals listing.
---------------
PREPCHECK
Use Repetitive Prepcheck System only:
E. On goals is there anything:
Another has suggested___________
You have failed to suggest___________
You have suggested___________
You have suppressed___________
You have failed to suppress___________
You have protested___________
Another has invalidated___________
You have invalidated___________
You have failed to reveal___________
You have been careful of___________
F. On the goal___________is there anything:
Another has suggested___________
You have failed to suggest___________
You have suggested___________
You have suppressed___________
You have failed to suppress___________
You have protested___________
Another has invalidated___________
You have invalidated___________
You have failed to reveal___________
You have been careful of___________
-----------------
G. READ GOAL TO PC: Reacts____________ Reacts_____________
Reacts____________
(If goal does not react when read in Section G, do Section H.)
H. Do you get a reaction when you ask pc-Has this goal been:
Suppressed___________
Invalidated___________
If no reaction do I.
If reaction, clean with Rep. Prepcheck.
I. Read goal to pc: Reacts____________ Reacts____________
Reacts____________
J. If reaction is a multiple reaction and not a clean single tick (if
needle reacts as a dirty needle on the Instant Read) ask Repetitive
"Are you withholding the goal from anyone?" Clean off any read.
K. Read goal to pc: Reacts____________ Reacts____________
Reacts____________
L. Do Mid Ruds Repetitive.
M. Read goal to pc: Reacts____________ Reacts____________
Reacts____________
(Note: Do any goal found up to this point, if it got past D above. If
the goal does not give a clean single tick every time it is read except
against a fast rise, abandon it. If goal reads in Section L use it for
listing as it is the goal.)
N. Compose list wording: (Do not change pronouns. If "Myself" or some
such word invites you to do so, use the goal just as it is. If goal is
negative use just as it is.)
1. Who or what would want to
___________________________
2. Who or what would not want to
___________________________
3. Who or what would oppose
___________________________(Change verb in goal to "ing" form.)
4. Who or what would not oppose
___________________________(Change verb in goal to "ing" form.)
Lines formed all reacted like the goal___________________
If not do a repetitive check on Mid Ruds and test again. Get pc to agree to
lines or find out why not.
When all lines react as an instant read, it is safe to list goal.
Comments:____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
__________________ _________________________________
Date Auditor
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:gl.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JULY AD12
CenOCon
Sthil Students
ROUTINE 3GA
HCO WW R-3GA Form 1
LISTING PREPCHECK
Before and during listing of goals, and before beginning to list items
for any goal from the four lines, and during listing, the following
Prepcheck must be completed as a form for the pc. It must thereafter be
done every fifth session. The form must be made out for the pc and included
in his or her folder.
The Prepcheck is done Repetitive (HCO Bulletin of 3 July AD12) in Model
Session with a Mark IV Meter.
______________________________________________ ____________________
Pc's Name Date
______________________________________________
Location of Org
Mark when clean:
A: In auditing is there anything you have
Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________
B: Since you have begun auditing is there anything another has failed to
find out about you?________
Since your arrival at (location) is there anything you have done to
another that we have failed to find out?________
C: In this lifetime, on listing is there anything you have
Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________
D: Since you have started Scientology listing has anything shifted your
attention?
Since you have started Scientology listing is there anything you have
Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________
E: FOR LINE LISTING AFTER GOAL HAS BEEN FOUND.
1. On the line "Who or what would want to______(goal)" is there
anything you have
Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________
2. On the line "Who or what would not want to_______(goal)" is
there anything you have
Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________
3. On the line "Who or what would oppose________ing (goal)" is
there anything you have
Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________
4. On the line "Who or what would not oppose__________ing
(goal)" is there anything you have
Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________
F: USE ONLY AFTER GOAL HAS BEGUN TO BE LISTED:
On the goal_________(goal) is there anything you have
Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________
Date completed__________________________ Auditor_____________________
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO PL is changed by HCO PL 22 July 1962, Routine 3GA-Listing
Wording.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
17 July 1962
** 6207C17 SHSBC-170 E-Meter Reads and ARC Breaks
** 6207C17 SHSBC-17 1 Anatomy of ARC Breaks
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 JULY 1962
Sthil Students
CenOCon
CLEARING-FREE NEEDLES
Any auditor running a Routine 3 process and obtaining a free needle on
an E-Meter should, on the Saint Hill course, have an Instructor observe and
verify that condition and in a Central Organization should have it observed
by an HCO Area Secretary.
Any auditor obtaining a free needle on all lines continuously (the
state of a first goal clear) should, on the Saint Hill course, demonstrate
that condition to an Instructor and, in a Central Organization, to an HCO
Area Secretary.
An Instructor or HCO Area Secretary should make a statement on the
auditing report testifying to the fact and existence of the free needle.
In short, there are two stages of observation-the first free needle
obtained on one line and the state of continuous free needle on all lines.
No verbal statement by an auditor, not otherwise confirmed as above is
to be given credence or be used to establish the condition of a case.
The early observation on one line being difficult to maintain for
observation is not mandatory, but if not verified as above may not be
claimed.
The state of a "first goal clear" is established by:
1. A free needle on each line ]listed from the goal.
2. No reaction of the goal on the meter after a final prepcheck on
that goal as per HCO Policy Letter 15 July 1962.
3. Tone Arm near Clear Read.
A free needle is not a stage 4 needle or an inverted stage 4. It is
floating and free.
In Routine 3GA we have actual, lasting clearing. It is accomplished by
expert and exact auditing. There is no reason to fake the condition or
rumour that someone is clear when he or she is not, or to tell someone he
or she is clear when they are not.
----------------
We are on solid ground with technology and procedure. Let's keep it
that way. The goal has been sought on Earth for 2,500 years. We have
achieved 8 first goal clears on the Saint Hill course in the last two
months. People, with reason, trust a clear. We have attained the state of
clear in Man. We must not upset that Trust.
LRH :gl.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6207C19 SHSBC-172 The E-Meter
** 6207C19 SHSBC-173 Question-and-Answer Period
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1962
Franchise
Sthil Students
URGENT
INSTANT READS
(Adds to HCO Bulletin of 25 May 1962)
On Rudiments, repetitive or fast, the instant read can occur anywhere
within the last word of the question or when the thought major has been
anticipated by the preclear, and must be taken up by the auditor. This is
not a prior read. Preclears poorly in session, being handled by auditors
with indifferent TR One, anticipate the instant read reactively as they are
under their own control. Such a read occurs into the body of the last
meaningful word in the question. It never occurs latent.
In other words all reads occurring when the major thought has been
received by the preclear must be taken up and cleaned. This does not mean
all needle reactions occurring while question is being asked must be
cleaned, but it does mean that the instant read is often to be found before
the last meaningful word is spoken fully, and it is catastrophic not to
take it up and clean it.
Goals and items are however read only when the read occurs exactly at
the end of the last word.
This will give you cleaner sessions and smoother needles.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.pm rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B was cabled to the Hubbard Communications Office in Washington,
D.C., who issued it on the same date as above under the title of Rudiments
Repetitive or Fast.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 JULY 1962
Sthil Students
CenOCon
ROUTINE 3GA
LISTING WORDING
(Changes HCO Policy Letter 17 July 1962, "Listing Prepcheck"
and HCO Policy Letter 15 July 1962, "Goals Prepcheck Form")
The wording of the four lines for listing out a goal should be as
follows:
Line One: "Who or what would want to (goal) ?"
Line Two: "Who or what would oppose (goal -ing form) ?"
Line Three: "Who or what would pull back opposition to (goal -ing form)
?"
Line Four: "Who or what would pull somebody or something back from (goal
-ing form) ?"
It will be noted that lines One and Two remain the same.
Also it should be noted that there is no alternate to "pull back"
(restrain, retard, give different vectors).
It should be noted also that the goal changes in form on three lines to
the "ing" form of the verb in the goal. Example: Goal-"to fish" changes to
"fishing".
These changes are for all goals. If a goal is currently being listed,
change the list wording to the above.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[See HCO B 21 August 1962, 3GA-Line Wording, page 130, which changes
earlier issues on 3GA lines.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
24 - 26 July 1962
** 6207C24 SHSBC-176 Routine 3GA, Part I
** 6207C24 SHSBC-177 Routine 3GA, Part II.
** 6207C26 SHSBC-178 Routine 3GA
** 6207C26 SHSBC- 179 Prepchecking
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 JULY 1962
Sthil Students
CenOCon
R3GA
HCO WW FORM G3
FAST GOALS CHECK
(Keep completed form in pc's folder)
This is a rapid check out of a goal for use by Auditors and
particularly Instructors and Auditing Supervisors. By an Auditor it is done
in Model Session. By an Instructor or Supervisor it is done as a simple
check out.
ALWAYS COMPLETE WHOLE CHECK.
___________________________________________ _____________________
Pc's Name Date
___________________________________________
Org Location
Goal_________________________________________________________________
A: Read goal rapidly to pc three times __________ __________
___________
Note reaction and inform pc if in or out.
B: Repetitive Ruds. (Early reads are acceptable as instant reads on
ruds, not on goal which must be instant only.)
On the goal _______________________________________________________
has anything been
Suppressed______________ Invalidated ______________
Suggested_______________ Withheld ________________
Only when each is clean, go to next and when all clean go to C.
C: Read goal rapidly to pc three times Note reaction and tell pc if in
or out.
D: Do fast ruds: Is there anything you have suppressed, suggested,
invalidated, failed to reveal. When all nul, go to E.
E: Do fast ruds plus goal with no pause between ruds and goal.
On the goal _______________________________________________________
is there anything you have suppressed, suggested, invalidated or failed
to reveal.
(Goal)___________ (Goal) ____________ (Goal)____________
If none of ruds read in this section and goal did read, providing the
meter reading of the check was flawless it is the right goal.
This section must be read all in one sweep to be valid, with no read on
any rud and a sharp downward tick each time exactly at end on the goal
read. Don't add in the goal until all four ruds items read nul in one
sweep. Then read the ruds line and the goal 3 times in one breath.
Goal checked out_______________ ________________________________
Auditor
Goal didn't check out____________
LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JULY 1962
Franchise
A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE
Here is the pattern for a new Problems Intensive that can be given by
HGC or field auditors and which will get them marvellous results on new or
old pcs.
This arrangement makes prepchecking come into its own, for if it is
well done then the pc is fairly well set up for having his goal found.
This intensive is amazingly easy to run providing that the auditor does
it pretty well muzzled and does not violate repetitive prepchecking drill.
Of course if the auditor's meter reading is not perfect and if the auditor
is not cognizant of recent HCO Bulletins on the meter and if the auditor
misses as many as two reads in a session, this whole result can wind up in
a fiasco. If the pc doesn't feel better on this one then the auditor just
didn't read the meter or miserably flubbed current drill. Of these two the
D of P had better suspect the meter readings if anything goes wrong.
The first thing to do is complete the old case assessment form. We do
this in Model Session and check after each small section of it as to
whether we've missed a withhold on the pc.
We then assess the self-determined change list (and don't goof and put
other determined changes on the pc's change list, or we'll be assessing
engrams).
We find the most important, most reacting change in the pc's life by
the largest read. This can also be done by elimination.
We then locate the prior confusion to that change. In no case will it
be earlier than two weeks from the incident. These confusions, so often
missed by the auditor, take place from two weeks to five minutes before the
actual decision to change.
Having located the time of the prior confusion, but not done anything
else about it, no lists of names or anything like that, we then go one
month earlier in date.
This gives us an exact date for our questions. Let us say the self-
determined change was June 1, 1955. The prior confusion was May 20, 1955,
and the arbitrary month earlier was April 20, 1955. We get the pc to spot
this arbitrary date more or less to his own satisfaction.
We now form a question as follows: "Since (date) is there anything you
have.......?"
The endings are in this order: Suppressed, Suggested, Been careful of,
Invalidated and Failed to reveal.
The question with one end is completely cleaned by Repetitive
Prepchecking. One asks it off the meter until the pc says there is no more.
Then one checks it on the meter and steers the pc with any read, and then
continues the question off the meter, etc, etc.
In turn we clean each one of the buttons above. This will take many
hours in most cases. It is vital not to clean anything that's clean or to
miss cleaning a read that reacts. In other words, do a clean meter job of
it all the way at sensitivity 16.
When we have in turn cleaned each of the buttons above, we do a new
assessment of the change list and get us a new time just as before and
handle that just as before.
When the second area is clean we assess for a third.
Frequently, particularly if the needle gets dirty, we ask for missed
withholds. Indeed one can use all the Middle Rudiments at least once each
session.
With expert needle reading that intensive will give the pc more gain
per hour of auditing than anything else short of Routine 3GA.
I wish you lots of success with it. Remember, the more variables you
introduce into such a system the less confidence the pc will have in you.
Good hunting.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[The order of Prepcheck buttons is amended by HCO B 30 August 1962, Order
of Prepcheck Buttons, page 133.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 AUGUST AD12
Sthil Students
CenOCon
ROUTINE 3GA
GOALS
NULLING BY MID RUDS
Now that 3GA has been proven time and again to make clearing a
certainty for all in the hands of a good auditor who knows his meter and
drills, I have been spending much time smoothing out any rough spots in
finding and being certain of the pc's goal. Only a wrong goal or opposition
goal can get the pc in real trouble. Therefore goals listing and nulling
and testing become of great importance.
THE GOALS LIST
The pc is asked to do a goals list. This can occur before or after a
goals Prepcheck, HCO Policy Letter of July 15, 1962.
The list must be at least 850 goals long, one column per foolscap
(legal size) page. (Folders of 4 pages, 1 sheet, of ruled 13 inch x 8 inch
paper can be bought in most stationers.) The pc is asked to get that many
(850) goals written legibly and numbered.
The pc must be warned not to read the list back to himself or herself
to try to find the goal, and not to attempt any nulling on self. (Pcs can
become quite ill doing this foolish reading or trying to nul on self. If a
method is ever developed for this, I'll release it, but no such method
exists and all attempts to find it on self have ended in failure. )
The auditor then does the goals Prepcheck form, HCO Policy Letter of
July 15, 1 962.
It is understood that the pc will have received at least a Problems
Intensive well done and have a fairly smooth needle.
TEST FOR CHARGE
The auditor tests the list now for needle charge. TA action on reading
half a page of goals to pc does not matter but will probably be absent.
What is important is the needle action. This must not exceed a quarter
of an inch rapid fall, instant, for any goal read on test. (A sudden wild
rock slam a half dial wide on a goal or two per page does not matter. It is
not always seen on a pc but happens on some.) Further, at least five goals
out of eight or ten have no instant read on them. In other words, the list
is flat on the needle.
If the list is not flat at 850 goals, then do a four line goals list,
one or four goals on each list, until the original goals list does react as
above.
This special goals listing uses the lines as follows:
1. What goal might you have?
2. What goal would oppose your goal?
3. What goal would retard opposition to your goal?
4. What goal would pull back your goal?
About sixty items or so, at a guess, put down one to four in rotation, on
each of these lists should discharge the goals list of superfluous needle
reaction. Occasional bursts of goals on these lines will be encountered.
Take them down. But try to keep the lines even in number, letting only line
I run on over length.
Carefully note any pain or sensation the pc gets on any goal on any
line. (Pn or Sen written after the goal.) This will help rule out
opposition goals.
When the main goals list in its early part, on the test, acts as above,
desist on the four lines of goal. Scrap (or at least put away) lines 2, 3
and 4. Do not use or nul them. But use line one as an added line to the
pc's goals list. Now ask the pc if the list is complete in addition to the
above test for needle action. Make sure pc seems happy that his goal is
somewhere on the goals list.
This then is a complete goals list and can be nulled.
NULLING BY MID RUDS
Nulling by repeater technique was the original method of nulling just
as repeater technique was the earliest form of Dianetic Auditing. It has
now been superseded by "Nulling by Mid Ruds".
If you did the Mid Ruds on every goal on the list you would be sure to
have the goal when you came across it. But this is too tedious. I have
worked out a much faster method using the Mid Ruds, faster even than
repeater technique.
There are only a few things that can hide a goal or make one read
falsely. These are:
"READ" throughout means "INSTANT READ".
SUPPRESSED-Can keep a goal or an invalidation, suggestion, mistake,
assertion or missed withhold on the goal from reading.
INVALIDATED-Can make a wrong goal read or can steal the read from a right
goal.
SUGGESTED-This is evaluation. It can do the same as "INVALIDATED"-make a
wrong goal read or steal the read from a right goal.
FAILED TO REVEAL-This is the missed withhold on the goal. It reads as a
minute rock slam and can absorb all other reads or make a wrong goal read
with a minute rock slam. We call this a "dirty needle".
MISTAKE BEEN MADE-This is a combination of the auditor or the pc asserting
and the other denying that it is or is not the goal. It is a conflict of
positive negative opinion and forms a ridge impossible to dispel unless the
auditor asks for "MISTAKE" .
ASSERTED-Another name for suggested, used mainly in check out, to be sure,
and occasionally in routine nulling when pc is declaring, "It is my goal."
The auditor should learn the above by rote and by sight and by
experience.
These are the only things that can give a wrong goal or submerge a
right one.
-------------
In actual use on nulling, each has a priority over the rest. Suppressed
is king, Invalidated is next, Suggested is third, Failed to Reveal is
fourth and Mistake been made is fifth.
These are used in nulling only as needed.
Example: The auditor reads a goal from the list once (with good TR 1 and no
flubs and pc in session). If the goal does not read, the auditor asks on
the meter, "Has this goal been suppressed?" If no reaction of needle on
either goal or "suppressed" the auditor says, "Thank you. That is out." And
marks the goal off the list.
Why? Because if it (1) was the goal it would have read. (2) If it was
an invalidated goal it would have read. (3) If a failed to reveal was
present it would have read a dirty needle. (4) If a mistake had been made
it would have read. So that leaves only Suppressed as possible. And if
Suppressed doesn't read, then that isn't the goal.
But if Suppressed reacted and was cleaned, the goal would have to be
read again.
If the goal read (originally or after Suppressed was cleaned), then it
may be not a goal read but an Invalidation, Suggestion, a Failed to reveal
(if dirty) or a Mistake. So one asks for an Invalidation. If that reads,
the auditor cleans it, and then asks the goal again, and if it now doesn't
read, the auditor asks Suppressed and if Suppressed doesn't read, the
auditor marks the goal off as "Out".
However, if the goal still read, after Invalidated was cleaned, the
auditor asks for Suggested. If that reads, the auditor cleans it and asks
the goal again. If it does not now read, the auditor asks Suppressed and if
it doesn't read, then the auditor marks the goal "Out".
If the last Suppressed read and was cleaned, the auditor reads the goal
again and if it reads, then the auditor asks for a Failed to reveal. If
that reads, the auditor cleans it and asks the goal again and if the goal
reads, the auditor asks if a Mistake has been made and if that reads the
auditor cleans it and asks the goal again, and if the goal does not read
the auditor asks Suppressed. If Suppressed doesn't read, the auditor marks
the goal "Out".
Also, this sequence applies, or any part of it. The auditor asks the
goal. It reads. The auditor, after a goal reads, never asks Suppressed at
once but the others. Suppressed is only asked after the goal is not reading
and the goal is marked "Out" only when both goal and Suppressed are found
clean one after the other without cleaning anything.
After a goal reads, ask Invalidated. If that doesn't read, ask
Suggested, if that doesn't read ask "Failed to reveal". If that doesn't
read, ask "Mistake been made". If that doesn't read ask Suppressed again to
be sure and then read the goal three times to see if it kicks after each
read. If it kicks only once or twice now, ask Suppressed and the rest and
try to get it to read each time as that would be the goal if it did!
This is like running in a maze, with doors suddenly opening to the
right and left and the auditor making a fast correct choice for the next
question. The more exact is his choosing, the faster the nulling. A full
bulletin of drills will be published on all this to give you the hang of
it.
And every goal behind you is not the goal and won't be examined again,
and every goal ahead may be.
Drilling with this system does marvels to pick up an auditor's speed on
this nulling.
A keen meter reader and a fast handling of this system can dispose of a
hundred goals in a couple of hours with no further re-nulling to do.
And the pc stays relaxed! No anxiety. That came from the built-up
charge of invalidations, etc, and the fact that the pc had no certainty for
15 hours or more of nulling. At least the pc is now certain of the goals he
or she doesn't have. And the charge is gone from them.
Intricate at first glance, requiring drill; this is a very rewarding
system. For you may find the pc's goal in the first 300 goals. And when you
have by this system, that's it. You go no further.
If you find this too hard at first, just do the Mid Ruds complete on
every goal until you can grasp this shortened system. It would be better
than repeater nulling.
If you use Mid Ruds until you learn this system (don't use repeater
technique any more on lists of goals, it's too long and too inaccurate) use
this form: Read the goal once. Then use this Mid Rud form, "On this goal
has anything been suppressed, invalidated, suggested, withheld, or
mistaken?" Watch for any fall on these words and clean it off until whole
question is clear. Then read the goal 3 times to see if it reacts. And mark
it in or out accordingly. If it still reads well, clean it up further. If
it finally reads with a sharp 1/16th of an inch more or less fall, exactly
at the end every time, it's the goal. Go no further on list.
When you study this HCO Bulletin well and drill on the drills HCO
Bulletin that goes with it, you will be able to make the goals fly.
Good hunting.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dr jh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 AUGUST AD12
Issue II
Sthil Students
CenOCon
ROUTINE 3GA
NULLING DRILLS
for
NULLING BY MID RUDS
(Accompanies HCO Bulletin of 1 August AD12)
(Note: In an actual session, in addition to Model Session script, only the
words below are used. No additive words or departures are necessary except
to clean up a constant dirty needle with session Mid Ruds if that
misfortune occurs. And use session Mid Ruds only when you can't go on
otherwise.)
Drill on New Nulling Procedure for Routine 3GA
Position for this drill is the usual auditor-coach position. The coach
only has the drill form and follows it exactly until the student auditor
has each example down perfectly. When the student auditor and the coach
have these drills down exactly, then the coach can give different reads and
different goals for the student auditor to work on, the only caution being
that the goals selected be those which would be most unlikely on anyone's
goals list. The goal used in this drill is: TO BE A TIGER. On the drills
below "A" is for auditor, "C" is for coach. Student and coach use only the
words in the drill except when student errs at which coach says, "Flunk!"
and "Start", at which student starts at the beginning.
Drill 1:
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 2.
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 3:
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 4:
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 5:
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have failed to
reveal?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have
failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: Thank you. To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 6:
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On the goal to be a tiger is there anything you have failed to
reveal?
C: Null
A: On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 7.
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: On the goal to be a tiger has any mistake been made?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 8:
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read (Note that this goal is now ready to be checked out.)
Drill 9:
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
suppressed.
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
suggested.
C: Read
A What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been
suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Read
A What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have
failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 10:
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have
suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal is there anything you have invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have suggested?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have
suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
LRH :jw jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 AUGUST 1962
CenOCon
CCH ANSWERS
The following queries and my reply are useful in the CCHs.
Ron from Ray = 1/8 = 335L
Thanks for Telexes 233L2 and 334L2. That's fine.
Some queries have come up about CCHs. Could we have the latest stable
data on
1. When is a physical origination picked up-after command is executed
and before acknowledgement, or after acknowledgement?
2. Does one pick up by saying-"How are you doing?" "What happened then?"
or "I noticed-so and so-happened. What's going on?"-or is there any
other method that we don't have and which is better than any of these?
Love
Ray
Ray from Ron = 15.30 = 2/8 = 335L2
1. When it happens.
2. Only by a two way comm query like "What's happening?"
Never designate the origin.
Don't make a system out of queries. Three commands nicely done is flat.
Don't take spoken data from PC about somatics as a reason to keep on.
Also the process that turns something on turns it off.
Love
Ron.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 AUGUST 1962
Sthil Students
Course
Franchise
RUNNING CCHs
CCHs being run terribly wrong.
Correct version follows: Run a CCH only so long as it produces change
in the pc's general aspect.
If no change in aspect for three commands, with the pc actually doing
the commands, go on to next CCH.
If CCH producing change do not go on but flatten that CCH.
Then when for three commands executed by the pc it produces no change
go on to next CCH.
Run CCHs One Two Three Four, One Two Three Four, One etc.
Use only right hand on One.
The CCHs are run alternated with Prepchecking session by session
depending upon whether or not the pc has had a win on either and whether
the CCHs in the CCH Session were not left with the pc stuck in one CCH
which was producing terrific change and thusly very unflat as a process.
CCHs are not run in Model Session, nor run on the E-Meter, nor are
goals set. The reality factor is established before the first command is
given.
It is code break clause thirteen to run a CCH that is producing no
change or to not flatten in same or subsequent session a CCH that is
producing change.
Some pcs get no reaction at first on any CCH; therefore run each one as
above, CCH One Two Three Four, One etc, and with Prepchecking being given
in alternate sessions, or as stated above in case one of the CCHs has to be
flattened off in another session on the CCHs.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jw.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6208C07 SHSBC-180 Routine 3GA Data on Goals, Part I
** 6208C07 SHSBC-181 Routine 3GA Data on Goals, Part II.
** 6208C08 SH TVD-11 Routine 3GA Nulling Goals (LRH auditing demo)
** 6208C09 SHSBC-182 Clearing
** 6208C09 SHSBC-183 Goals Listing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST AD12
Magazine
Franchise
HOW IT FEELS TO GO CLEAR
Jean Kennedy of Bulawayo, Southern Rhodesia, wrote me a note after her
first goal was cleared. She had been cleared once on Routine 3 and was
cleared again on the same goal at Saint Hill with Routine 3GA. Her
subjective reality on these two processes is of great value to all
Scientologists.
These are in actual fact two notes. I give you both with her
permission.
She has now had her second goal found and is listing on it and will
soon be the first 3GA 2nd goal clear. She graduates this week from the
Saint Hill course with honours.
"Dear Ron,
I feel tip top at the moment, and really couldn't have asked for more
out of auditing, if this was as far as one could go it would be enough. I
must say there are two big basic differences in the way I feel now and the
way I felt after the 3rd S.A. ACC. (1 ) This time I have a bigger
certainty, and a very 'comfortable' feeling, and while R3 processed you up
to more confidence each session, I found on R3GA (just before the lines
went free), that I had never felt so stripped bare, and at one stage I
didn't know who I was or where I was going until I realized that 'I' had to
do things not wait for something else to do them! So all in all listing on
the goal was fun, pictures and track recall were very vivid and I sailed
right back to the beginning of 'body moulding', but the biggest thrill of
all was the basic cognition where I thought I was going to find the answer
to why I decided to be that way-and guess what, there wasn't any reason !
Jean."
---------------
On receipt of the above I asked her for permission to issue and she
wrote the following expansion:
"This is the basic difference between R3 and R3GA. Being run on R3 had
a limiting effect inasmuch as you didn't run with enough depth and could
never really get at the reason why you chose to be the way you are. It
processed you towards greater confidence each session and finally left you
feeling tip top, mass-less but still no real answer-and one was always a
little vulnerable, if you knew the right button. Pictures and cognitions
were also limited.
Now, R3GA was very different and had much more punch behind it, and you
could 'get' at things you would never have got at on R3. At the start of
listing everything seemed innocent enough and I couldn't see any difference
between the two, and suddenly the track opened up and vivid pictures and
recall in detail on the track came from all directions, cognitions shot off
the body in little spark forms and one could feel the masses just exploding
all around, at times making the rings so hot on my hands they had to be
taken off. There was a steady feeling of cycling backwards (to the start of
body moulding) and one's habit patterns, fixed ideas and attitudes just
went flying by. The most fascinating part was the lines transferring over
and viewpoints changing totally.
The worst part comes just before the end, two days before the needle
went free I dug my heels in and refused to give another item-why, because I
didn't know who I was, where I was and least of all why I made that
postulate. I have never felt so stripped bare of everything and suddenly
realized that nothing was automatically going to swing into place and do
things for me, 'I' would have to do them.
My auditor gently coaxed me into more items, and then at the bottom I
found the answer I have been looking for, for so long-'nothing'-how foolish
can a thetan be! But what a certainty.
Jean Kennedy."
L RON HUBBARD
LRH:jw.bh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 13 AUGUST AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROCK SLAMS AND DIRTY NEEDLES
I have been lucky enough and you have been fortunate enough to trace
the source of the persistent dirty needle and also the wide rock slam.
A criminal I had my hands on showed me clearly that the wide rock slam
was an overt. The dirty needle is a small rock slam. And so we benefit.
The reason a rock slam is a rock slam is that I found it on many pcs in
an effort to locate the rock.
It now turns out that it is also the sign of an overt. For instance all
failed to reveals read with a small dirty needle which is in fact a smaller
edition of the rock slam.
If you have a wide rock slam then the goal does not exist on the list
and that list may be scrapped.
If you find this on a pc it means either that the pc has fantastic
personal overts against you or that the pc's goal is such as to be an overt
against Scientology.
Therefore on a pc whose needle is doing a large or a small rock slam
all you have to do is ask for "What goal might you have that would be an
overt against Scientology?" and you will be able to run the rock slam off
by so listing, and when it is gone you will have the pc's goal on that
list.
In the case of a small occasional dirty needle you have missed a
withhold or the goal lies under your pencil while nulling or a few goals
earlier.
When the dirty needle is persistent and is always recurring, the
solution is to list goals with the question as stated above.
The actual formula for this is as follows, for a dress parade action on
raw meat.
Do a Dynamic Assessment. Ask the question: "What goal might you have
that would be an overt against (dynamic found)?"
It turns out amongst Scientologists that the roughest case is thereby
now the shortest case to do, as the goal will lie on a specific list which,
when nulled by Mid Ruds (Tiger Drill), will disclose the pc's goal.
These principles should be put into effect at once.
LRH:dr.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright �1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6208C14 SHSBC-184 Rock Slams and Dirty Needles
** 6208C14 SHSBC-185 World Clearing
** 6208C15 SH TVD-12A 3GA Dynamic Assessment-Listing Items for
Dynamics, I
** 6208C15 SH TVD-12B 3GA Dynamic Assessment-Listing Items for
Dynamics, II.
** 6208C16 SHSBC-186 3GA Dynamic Assessment
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 AUGUST AD12
Sthil Students
Franchise Airmail
3GA
LINE WORDING
(Changes all earlier Policy Letters and HCO Bulletins on Lines, 3GA)
Lines must read after the goal is checked out and before listing.
The optimum line wording is probably as follows:
LINE ONE: WHO OR WHAT WOULD WANT ( goal ).
LINE TWO: WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE ( goal ing form for verb ).
LINE THREE: WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE OPPOSITION TO ( goal ing form ).
LINE FOUR: WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT WANT ( goal ).
The line must read on the pc, firing like the goal, each time.
LISTING SESSION
The goal must be made to fire at least at the beginning of every
listing session.
The button "Suppress" can be too heavily charged to read at first on a
goal unless it is repetitively used as opposed to fast checking. All other
Mid Rud buttons can be fast checked.
DURING LISTING
Before listing any one line, the goal should be made to fire and the
line made to fire, both by the Tiger Drill (HCO Bulletin 1 August 1962).
The line is then listed. This may be found more time-consuming than
timesaving in listing but is a good thing to do.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
21 August 1962
** 6208C21 SHSBC-187 Finding Goals by Dynamic Assessment
** 6208C21 SHSBC-188 Basics of Auditing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 AUGUST 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GA
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT TIP
To get a complete list for a Dynamic Assessment ask for "any additional
parts of the dynamics", after giving pc a broad list of them.
Then ask for "anything the pc can think of that should not be a part of
existence" and carefully put down everything pc says isn't or shouldn't be
a part of existence.
DATUM: THE ONLY REASON GOAL FINDING BY DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT FAILS IS
BECAUSE THE ITEM IS NOT ON THE LIST. THIS IS TRUE OF THE LIST OF DYNAMICS
AND THE LIST OF ITEMS. NO WIDE ROCK SLAM WILL DEVELOP IF THE LIST IS NOT
COMPLETE. USE PC'S LIST OF DYNAMICS PLUS THINGS HE SAYS AREN'T. GET LOTS OF
"DYNAMICS" FROM THE PC UNDER ANY DYNAMIC HE WANTS TO LEAVE OUT. "WHAT
PARTICULARLY SHOULDN'T BE A PART OF THAT DYNAMIC?"
Assess by tiny Rock Slam, or wide Rock Slam, asking some version of
this thought on each Dynamic, "Consider committing overts against
(dynamic)." Read by Instant RS (dirty needle or wide slam).
Assess out the Dynamic that Rock Slams most.
Now list this Dynamic by asking the question, "What represents (dynamic
found) to you?"
Bleed meter for any more items. If list complete meter will be quiet.
During this writing of items a wide Rock Slam will turn on, diminish to
a dirty needle as you list and vanish when list is complete. Carefully note
on Auditor's Report if this happened as it will never happen again!
Assess list with the question, "Consider committing overts against
(list item being tested)."
Keep in all instant Rock Slams or dirty needles. Assess down to one
Item. This, like the Dynamics assessment is ordinary Assessment by
Elimination.
Find Item.
Prepcheck Item. Be very careful to keep Suppress button clean.
Ask the pc for a list of goals with the following question: "What goal
might you have that would be an overt against______(Item)?" As you list you
will get a wide RS dwindling as you list to a dirty needle and vanish. List
this first line out to a clean needle before listing goals on any of the
remaining lists.
You want only a few goals on each of these lists except List One. On
List One list off the Rock Slam. Note on report that this happened.
GOALS FORMULAE
What Goal might you have-
1. that would be an overt against (item)? (Poor)
2. that (item) would consider impossible? (Check)
3. that (item) might consider was an overt?
4. that (item) would consider undesirable (also for itself or
themselves)? (Good) (Check)
5. that (item) would prevent you from doing? (Good) (Check)
6. that would be impossible to realize if you were (item or part of
item). (Best)
7. that would be impossible if (item) were you? (Check)
8. that couldn't be achieved because (item) acted as a barrier?
9. that (the item) would make too difficult?
10. Just list some more goals.
List all lists in order above until Rock Slam and all tendency to a
dirty needle vanishes.
Pc will probably know his goal. Or his goal will recur on several of
the lists.
Assess List Six above first, being very careful of Suppress, working it
over hard.
If not on List Six use List Five. If not on Five, go over List Four. If
not on List Four, nul remaining list.
If the pc has any dirty needle (minute Rock Slam) or lots of Fail to
Reveal answers, lists above were not completed to clean needle and a bled
meter.
If your pc's Dynamic was on the Dynamic List, if the pc's Item was on
the Item List, and if your pc's goal was put down on the above lists, and
if the Dwindling Wide Rock Slam was found on Listing Items and Listing Line
One above on goals, you'll have pc's goal on list for sure.
If you turn on the above phenomena, write it on a report giving Dynamic
and Item to HCO WW as it can never be turned on again.
The goal must be checked out by a Class IV auditor before it can be
listed.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B incorporates HCO B 23 August 1962, 3GA-Dynamic Assessment by
Rock Slam, the only text of which said to add the tenth line in the Goals
Formulae above. This HCO B is added to by HCO B 31 August 1962, 3GA-Dynamic
Assessment by Rock Slam, page 135, and modified by HCO B 3 September 1962,
3GA-Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam, page 138. It is canceled by HCO PL 25
February 1963, R2-R3-Routine 3-M-Goal Finding by Method B, which has a
limited distribution so is not in these volumes.]
** 6208C22 SH TVD-13A Dynamic Assessment and Item
Assessment, Part I
** 6208C22 SH TVD-13B Dynamic Assessment and Item
Assessment, Part II.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 AUGUST 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS
This is the following order of buttons for all Prepcheck forms,
including those of July 15 and all Problems Intensives. A11 buttons must be
cleaned before leaving any section even if they have to be gone over
several times in sequence.
The first question to be asked is "What have you been careful of?"
The subsequent questions are: "What has been______________?"
The endings are now as follows and in the order:
Agreed upon.
Suppressed.
Asserted.
Invalidated.
Suggested.
Protested.
Revealed.
Mistaken.
Withheld.
Done by you.
Decided.
Finally: "What goals have been set?"
These buttons are done over and over until nothing is made to read and
the suppressed button has been worked hard every time it is covered.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :dr.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 31 AUGUST 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GA
EXPANDED LINE WORDING
The following are expanded line wordings for listing on a found and
checked goal in Routine 3GA:
GOAL: "To Sneeze", which is used as an example.
Line One: Who or what would want to sneeze?
Line Two: Who or what would oppose sneezing?
Line Three: Who or what would not oppose sneezing?
Line Four: Who or what would not want to sneeze?
Line Five: Who or what would sneeze?
Line Six: Who or what would not sneeze?
Line Seven: Who or what would oppose opposition to sneezing?
Line Eight: Who or what would pull back somebody or something from
sneezing?
Line Nine: Who or what would want to be sneezed at?
Line Ten: Who or what would oppose being sneezed at?
Line Eleven: Who or what would not oppose being sneezed at?
Line Twelve: Who or what would not want to be sneezed at?
Line Thirteen: Who or what would be sneezed at?
Line Fourteen: Who or what would not be sneezed at?
Line Fifteen: Who or what would cause somebody or something to be sneezed
at?
Line Sixteen: Who or what would help somebody or something not to be
sneezed at? Line Seventeen: Who or what would someone or something have
to be in order to sneeze?
Line Eighteen: Who or what would someone or something have to be in order
to oppose sneezing?
Line Nineteen: Who or what would someone or something have to be in order
not to oppose sneezing?
Line Twenty: Who or what would someone or something dare not to be in order
to sneeze?
Lines Seventeen through Twenty are not vital to list, and Lines Nine
through Sixteen, which are the effect wording of the goal, may not be
broadly workable.
Lines One through Eight are vital. By listing four items at a time on
the first eight lines or the first sixteen lines, the case stays balanced,
the goal can be kept firing, and clearing is speeded.
So use eight or sixteen lines on goal listing.
As regards pain, it can occur on any line in listing. The only
dangerous indication is if no pain occurs on any line, only sensation,
which indicates that rudiments are out or that the goal is wrong. Pain can
even occur on Lines Two and Four and sensation on Lines One and Three, and
all still be okay.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.-h
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 31 AUGUST 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GA
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM
(Second addition to HCO Bulletin of 22 August 1962, same title)
If a routine Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam fails, the preclear should
be prepchecked on "On Auditing is there anything you have suppressed?" etc.
Then the preclear can be listed on "What isn't a part of the Dynamics?"
and "What part of life have you regretted?"
Completing and assessing these lists, will give you the Dynamic.
LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GA-DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM
The following is a step list which modifies earlier HCO Bulletin.
List persons the preclear has considered opinionated and has detested.
Assess by "Consider committing overts against______."
List "What part of existence does (person found) represent?" Assess by
"Consider committing overts against______."
Take Dynamic found. List "What represents (Dynamic found) to you?"
(dwindling Rock Slam). Assess by "Consider committing overts
against______."
Take item found. List "What goal have you had that would be an overt
against (item found)?" (dwindling Rock Slam).
Do list 6 by listing "What goal might you have that would be impossible
to achieve if you were______or (part of______)?"
If item not on first lists above, list all remaining lists in HCO
Bulletin August 22, '62, and examine for goals in common to a majority of
lists and Tiger Drill these.
LRH:rahjh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
CLEARING SUCCESS CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
1-3 September 1962
L. Ron Hubbard gave nine lectures at the Clearing Success Congress,
which was held in Washington, D.C., at the Shoreham Hotel.
6209C01 CSC-1 Presentation of the GPM
** 6209C01 CSC-2 The Point Where the Pc Begins to Get Clear
6209C01 CSC-3 Basic Purpose
6209C02 CSC-4 The Healing Effect of Preparatory Auditing
(Suppress Button)
6209C02 CSC-5 Staff Introduction-Demo: J. Fudge
** 6209C02 CSC-6 The Problems Intensive, Mechanics and Buttons
6209C03 CSC-7 World Clearing and You
6209C03 CSC-8 Slides Shown by Reg Sharpe
** 6209C03 CSC-9 Your Scientology Orgs and What They Do for You
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 SEPTEMBER AD12
Franchise
ACCOUNT OF CONGRESS GOAL
It was offered at the Clearing Success Congress in Washington,
September 1st to 3rd, that we would find a goal on someone at the Congress
whose name would be drawn at random from a basket. We drew six names from a
basket, and the subsequent interview demonstrated that four of these people
had rock slams on asking for a short list of people they detested.
Jim Skelton did the interviewing and auditing and goal finding.
Lieutenant Colonel Voight was selected as the most likely candidate.
Every available moment of auditing time from the first intermission to
the beginning of the third day was thereafter utilized.
It was impossible to turn the rock slam back on after it had been
demonstrated by the PC in the interview. Standard dynamic assessment steps
were taken without avail.
A dynamic (group) was equivocally located as the dynamic the PC had
overts on, and the item Scientology appeared on that list. Earlier than
this, I requested Jim to ask the PC what would be the consequences of our
clearing him. The PC's answers indicated that he would have to change his
whole life. On the strength of this, we used the following two questions to
list goals.
1. "What goal might you have that would be an overt against
Scientology?"
2. "If you were part of Scientology, what goal of yours would be
impossible to achieve?"
Jim listed some 49 goals on the first question, and then happened to be
looking at the meter, and out of the clean flowing meter suddenly appeared
a rocket read. He asked the PC what the PC was thinking of, and the PC
said, "Immortality, and things like that," and Jim said, "What goal might
be associated with this?" And the PC said, "To live."
Jim wrote the goal down and Tiger Drilled it at once, ignoring the
remaining goals. The goal read sporadically with ticks and one half dial
drop, and seemed very alive. It was interesting that no TA action
whatsoever occurred during the listing of the goals on the first question
above, and that the second question was never asked. It could be speculated
that the goal might have appeared on the second list, but this is of course
speculation.
Jim came to my room to tell me about this, and I asked him where the
pain and rock slam were. Jim said there had been none, and returned to the
auditing room. Much to our relief on Jim's return to the auditing room, the
preclear informed him that he had an excruciating pain in his arm which had
made him weep, so great was the intensity of it. Jim put him back on the
meter, and once more resuming Tiger Drill a wide rock slam turned on, on
the goal.
In the check-out session, it was obvious to the auditor that the PC
needed a great deal of prepchecking to smooth him out; when he did the end
rudiments on the PC, the rock slam continued straight on through the end
rudiments, or would have if the auditor had not said, "Floor, floor,
floor," several times and gotten the rock slam off so that he could get the
end rudiments in.
The PC's cognitions were extreme and numerous, and the behaviour of the
needle was strong and persistent, and there is no slightest doubt but what
this was the PC's goal.
This demonstration of dynamic assessment by rock slam and finding a
PC's goal with this "slight" deadline was a very adventurous activity, and
we held our breaths until it had been done. As a matter of fact, we began a
second PC on the second day, in hopes of at least getting one on one of the
persons offered, and on the second PC were able to get a complete dynamic
list as per the standard steps. This PC, on listing on the detested
persons' names, listed about a hundred and fifty items, dove straight into
his bank, and had extreme manifestations of insanity, and excruciating
pain. The dynamic was speculated to be the eighth, but this dynamic
assessment was not complete. However, this PC's life changed remarkably
just by doing the first bit of dynamic assessment.
LRH:rah.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GA
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM
The following is a step which modifies the HCO Bulletin of 22 August
1962:
List persons the preclear has considered opinionated and has detested.
Assess by "Consider committing overts against ______."
List "What part of existence does (person found) represent?" Assess by
"Consider committing overts against______."
Take Dynamic found. List "What represents (Dynamic found) to you?"
(dwindling Rock Slam). Assess by "Consider committing overts against
______."
Take item found. List "What goal have you had that would be an overt
against (item found)?" (dwindling Rock Slam).
Do list 6 by testing "What goal might you have that would be impossible
to achieve if you were______or part of______?"
LRH: dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W. , Washington 9 , D.C.
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER AD 12
CenOCon
Franchise Airmail
3GA
TO BE GOALS LINE LISTING
The following is a 24 line listing for a beingness type goal.
The method of running is to place the heading on 24 consecutive legal
length pages so that one exists for each line.
The method of running is to clean up the goal so that it fires three
times at the beginning of session and then simply list for the remainder of
session, putting in Middle Rudiments only at such times as the pc has
obviously gone out of session.
These lines are listed exactly four items on each line in rotation.
After the four items have been written a short strike mark is put under the
beginning of the last item written so that the auditor can easily see when
he has listed the next four.
The above directions will apply to all types of lines listed,
beingness, doingness and havingness goals, but different wordings have to
be used for doingness and havingness goals. NOTE: These lines are not
ordinarily prepchecked or made to fire before being used on a pc.
Line One Who or what would want to be a catfish?
Line Two Who or what would not want to be a catfish?
Line Three Who or what would oppose being a catfish?
Line Four Who or what would not oppose being a catfish?
Line Five Who or what would be a catfish?
Line Six Who or what would not be a catfish?
Line Seven Who or what would oppose opposition to being a catfish?
Line Eight Who or what would pull back somebody or something from being
a catfish?
Line Nine Who or what would want a catfish?
Line Ten Who or what would not want a catfish?
Line Eleven Who or what would oppose wanting a catfish?
Line Twelve Who or what would not oppose wanting a catfish?
Line Thirteen Who or what would make a catfish?
Line Fourteen Who or what would not make a catfish?
Line Fifteen Who or what would oppose making a catfish?
Line Sixteen Who or what would not oppose making a catfish?
Line Seventeen Who or what would have to be a catfish?
Line Eighteen Who or what would not have to be a catfish?
Line Nineteen Who or what would have to oppose a catfish?
Line Twenty Who or what would not have to oppose a catfish?
Line Twenty-One Who or what would have to have a catfish?
Line Twenty-Two Who or what would not have to have a catfish?
Line Twenty-Three Who or what would oppose having to have a catfish?
Line Twenty-Four Who or what would not oppose having to have a catfish?
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jb jh
copyright �1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER AD12
CenOCon
SECURITY CHECKS AGAIN
With the advent of Dynamic Assessment a new method of Security
Checking, far better than any previous Security Checking, has emerged.
Nothing in this bulletin of course detracts in any way from the value
of missed withholds, pulling missed withholds or handling missed withholds
on preclears or other persons in the Organisation.
If the following questions are asked of a person on a meter it can be
at once established whether or not this person will inadvertently,
covertly, or unknowingly attempt to ruin, wreck, stop and otherwise
interfere with an Organisation, Scientology, or an Auditor. The questions
are as follows:
Consider committing overts against Scientology.
Consider committing overts against Ron.
Consider committing overts against the Organisation.
Consider committing overts against me. (the auditor)
It will be found that such a person has a goal which the person
considers to be impossible to achieve so long as any one of the above four
exist, therefore destructive actions will at all times be manifested no
matter how "constructive" they appear.
The Rock Slam produced must be a wide Rock Slam to be decisive. By wide
Rock Slam is meant a quarter of a dial Rock Slam to a full dial Rock Slam.
The action which should be taken if this condition is found to exist is
to suspend the person or otherwise put the person away from communication
lines until such time as the person's Dynamic, Item, and Goal are found.
Sometimes it is almost enough merely to find the Item, as the foolishness
of the conclusion that Scientology stands immediately and directly in their
road will appear to the preclear at that time.
By "A Goal which is an overt against Scientology" is meant something
which the pc considers to be a goal which is an overt against. When you
finally see such goals appear they will not be apparent to the auditor as
overts. However, the pc so interprets them. For instance a pc may have a
fixed idea against any spiritual activity, interpreting it as a harsh
activity which forbids dancing, and the pc may have a goal to dance.
However the person's Item lying above the goal to dance will be found to be
a spiritual group and this of course would make Scientology appear to the
person to be highly antipathetic to the goal to dance.
I cannot too strongly urge the fact that when the above occurs no
possible good will result until the Dynamic, Item, and Goal are found.
Therefore this should be expedited. All care should be taken not to punish
the person unduly, but to carry on because often the person is unaware of
the destructiveness of his or her own actions.
In a marriage, if the husband were to place the wife on an E-Meter and
ask the question "Consider committing overts against me" and find a wide
Rock Slam immediately results, he will be then in total possession of what
has been wrong with his marriage. Similarly, a wife finding this
manifestation on a husband would also be informed.
The remedy in such a case is not to sack somebody, to shoot somebody, to
divorce somebody or take some drastic final action, because we now have all
the answer we need to resolve this and it will be found that as soon as the
person's goal has been found the condition of hostility will cease.
The Rock Slam produced must be at sensitivity 16 on the meter. If a
dirty needle occurs it is necessary to pull the person's missed withholds
because these obviously exist. This should not be neglected. By Dirty
Needle is meant a quarter of an inch agitation of the needle as an instant
response to the asking of the above questions.
This is the new security programme. Any person responsible for
maintaining security in an Organisation or a home should perform the above
tests and take the remedial action.
I cannot too strongly urge that while this is absolute, or near as it
can be, and positive in its diagnosis, it is not permanent because we can
now clear, and clearing consists of doing away with the Rock Slam and not
the offending person.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jb.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 SEPTEMBER AD 12
Issue III
CenOCon
AUTHORIZED PROCESSES
Only the following processes are authorized for use on Staff Members
and on HGC Preclears:
Assists.
Problems Intensives (Modern Version).
Ordinary 3GA.
3GA by Dynamic Assessment.
No other processes are to be used on Staff or HGC Preclears.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jb.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6209C18 SHSBC-189 Directing Pc's Attention
** 6209C18 SHSBC-190 3GA Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GA
TIPS ON DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT
RULES OF THUMB
1. If the system does not work, it is invariable that the item is not on
the list.
2. If an item, dynamic, or person can be found that will RS broadly,
only list "What represents" from it. Do not use another form of listing
(goals being a "represents" also).
3. The pc's interest follows the RS.
4. Carefully record the presence of a RS or any dwindling of the RS on
any item, dynamic or, most important, during the course of listing.
5. If the pc has no cognitions the item is not on the list.
6. The dynamic and/or item will be accompanied by heavy pain or
sensation if on the list.
7. A RS is a convulsion of the mind and can reflect as a convulsion of
the body.
8. A pc's needle may be dirty until the goal is on the list.
9. A goal sometimes cannot be checked out until the charge is listed off
on various goals lists derived from the item.
10. The item is more valuable than the person found or dynamic found.
11. An item is proven by its overt goals list (No. 1 ) producing a
dwindling slam.
12. The real item when listed itself on "What represents" gives no
further slams on the new list.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:gljh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
19-20 September 1962
** 6209C19 SH TVD-14A Tiger Drill, Part 1
** 6209C19 SH TVD-14B Tiger Drill, Part 2
** 6209C20 SHSBC-191 Listing Lines
** 6209C20 SHSBC-192 Geriatrics
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 SEPTEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
A 40 LINE LIST ON A DOINGNESS GOAL
Using the create CDEI scale a system of writing lines for goals listing
has been attempted.
This gives us Create, Interest, Desire, Enforce and Inhibit.
We have four flows for each word positive and four flows for each word
at effect. The goal: To impress people. And the lines are:
Who or what would create an impression on people?
Who or what would not create an impression on people?
Who or what would create opposition to impressing people?
Who or what would not create opposition to impressing people?
Who or what people would want an impression created?
Who or what people would not want an impression created?
Who or what people would oppose an impression being created?
Who or what people would not oppose an impression being created?
Who or what would be interested in impressing people?
Who or what would not be interested in impressing people?
Who or what would oppose interest in impressing people?
Who or what would not oppose interest in impressing people?
Who or what people would be interested in being impressed?
Who or what people would not be interested in being impressed?
Who or what people would oppose interest in being impressed?
Who or what people would not oppose interest in being impressed?
Who or what would want to impress people?
Who or what would not want to impress people?
Who or what would oppose impressing people?
Who or what would not oppose impressing people?
Who or what people would want to be impressed?
Who or what people would not want to be impressed?
Who or what people would oppose wanting to be impressed?
Who or what people would not oppose wanting to be impressed?
Who or what would have to impress people?
Who or what would not have to impress people?
Who or what would have to oppose impressing people?
Who or what would not have to oppose impressing people?
Who or what people would have to have an impression made on them?
Who or what people would not have to have an impression made on them?
Who or what people would have to oppose an impression being made on them?
Who or what people would not have to oppose an impression being made on
them?
Who or what would inhibit impressing people?
Who or what would not inhibit impressing people?
Who or what would inhibit opposition to impressing people?
Who or what would not inhibit opposition to impressing people?
Who or what people would inhibit an impression being made on them?
Who or what people would not inhibit an impression being made on them?
Who or what people would inhibit opposition to an impression being made on
them?
Who or what people would not inhibit opposition to an impression being made
on them?
Similar goals, all of a doingness type, can be patterned as above.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.Jh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
25-27 September 1962
** 6209C25 SHSBC-193 Current Trends
** 6209C25 SHSBC-194 3GA Assessment
** 6209C27 SHSBC-195 3GA Listing
** 6209C27 SHSBC-195A 3GA Listing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1962
Franchise
CenOCon
VALID PROCESSES
(Changes all earlier Issues)
The following processes should be used by all Scientologists and other
earlier processes should be discarded except for research.
Class I: Assists.
Class I: CCHs, Op Pro by Dup and SCS.
Class I: ARC Straight Wire.
Class II: Problems Intensives (Modern).
Class II: Prepchecking Auditing, goals, etc.
Class II: Goals Listing.
Class III: 3GA Ordinary.
Class IV: 3GA by Dynamic Assessment.
Class II: Items Listing.
Classes II, III and IV: Tiger and Big Tiger Drills on goals, items,
lines, single words, names, persons.
All except Assists, CCHs, Op Pro by Dup and SCS are done in Model
Session.
If a process is not mentioned above, do not use it.
NOTE: Any of the above Processes, except 3GA ordinary goals finding and
3GA Dynamic Assessment may be done in Co-audits under direct supervision of
classed auditors.
For the greatest gain achievable by an auditor in his class, use the
above. An auditor attempting processes above his class will have failures
and spoiled cases.
Use of processes above Classification can result in cancellation of
certificates.
We can clear Earth. Why spoil cases in the process?
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.cden
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER AD 12
Franchise
PROBLEMS INTENSIVE USE
The only fully valid lower level process today that achieves enormously
effective results, is the Modern Problems Intensive.
It does the following:
Eradicates feelings of illness
Adds years to life
Subtracts years from appearance
Increases IQ.
It is very easy to run as it can be done with errors and, so long as
the Tone Arm moves, will achieve marvellous results.
It is the ideal HGC process for HCA/HPA staff auditors as it gives them
countless wins.
It is a natural for the field auditor who knows his Model Session and
the rundown.
It can be combined with the CCHs or used without.
Its rundown is simple.
One does a Case Assessment. Assesses for the Change, predates it by a
month and runs the Prepcheck Buttons on it over and over, flattening each
one so far as possible.
When one assessed change is run, another list of changes is made and
assessed and it is all done again.
It can be interrupted by an end of intensive without consequences to
the pc if something was left unflat.
The public may scream to get clear, but most of it could only be
audited on a Problems Intensive anyway.
Unlike partially completed or badly done goals assessments, there is no
liability to a Problems Intensive.
All the gains envisioned in Book I can be achieved with enough Problems
Intensives, even a 1st Dynamic clear in many cases.
So don't risk your pc's health and good will if you're not a Saint Hill
graduate. Get good, solid gains with the Modern Problems Intensive. Only if
you fail to find and pull his or her Missed Withholds in the course of
sessions could you estrange a pc.
You may have to clear the buttons for the pc who doesn't understand the
words, but other than that it's all plain sailing.
People are suddenly losing all manner of things they thought were
illnesses and were calling arthritis and ulcers and what not. They weren't
sick. They were just suppressed.
Please realize what you've got here in a Modern Problems Intensive.
I'll be giving you lots of data on how it's done.
LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 OCTOBER AD12
Sthil Students
Franchise Airmail
3GA
LISTING BY TIGER BUTTONS
114 NEW LINES FOR LISTING
(Cancels all earlier HCO Bs on Listing)
(A student under Theory Examination is not supposed to know the lines by
heart,
only the directions, and how to put lines together sensibly.)
This is probably excellent as the later lines are the same buttons that
make goals fire.
The first four lines are well tried. Remember that many have gone Clear
on the 1st four with smooth auditing. The next four are also well tried.
The next four are taken from the ACC that cleared 15 people.
The remaining lines are the buttons that make goals fire.
The first Twelve Lines can be gone through more often during the course
of the next 102.
(NOTE: Before doing this listing, make sure the pc knows what his goal
is and Tiger Drill nul any old goal found on pc or any goal wording pc
thought was his. To get pc's goal to fire at each session beginning, use
"In Auditing on the goal____has anything been ____?" Goal also should be
made to fire at session end just before room rud with same drill to clear
up session.)
(NOTE: Any trouble with listing stems from (1) Rough Auditing, auditors
challenging answers or mixing up questions, pc not in session and ruds out.
(2) Wrong lines. (3) Goal not cleaned. (4) Consequences of being Clear
feared by pc. (5) Wrong goal. (6) Pc protesting about Lines and Listing.)
(NOTE: Signs of above are (1) TA mostly at 4.5 or 5.0 and doesn't come
down. (2) Pc ARC breaky even after missed withholds clean [the items are
now withheld] . (3) Pc looking bad, eyes watery. (4) No pain in session [a
right goal on checkout always gives pain] . (5) All sen on listing [comes
from pc suppressing or being careful of or failing to reveal, these being
the Sensation buttons, or from wrong goal] . (6) Bank getting more solid.
(7) Pc sick and nauseated. [6 and 7 only occur with a wrong goal.] )
(NOTE: The Tiger Drill buttons or any button or word can itself be
Tiger Drilled using the ordinary 6 buttons, all with good effect.)
l. WHO OR WHAT WOULD WANT
2. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT WANT
3. WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE
4. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT OPPOSE
5. WHO OR WHAT WOULD (Effect wording of goal)
6. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT (Effect wording of goal)
7. WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE (Effect wording of goal)
8. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT OPPOSE (Effect wording of goal)
(Effect wording can include "be the effect of")
9. WHO OR WHAT WOULD HELP SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (goal)
10. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT HELP SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (goal)
11. WHO OR WHAT WOULD HELP OPPOSE SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (goal)
12. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT HELP OPPOSITION TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (goal,
ing)
Now into the next blank spaces fit the following buttons, one full
consecutive set of lines for each button; make the line (both goal and
button) make sense if it does not:
Suppress Protest about Damage
Invalidate Hide from Withdraw from
Be Careful of Reveal things to Create
Suggest things to Make a mistake about Destroy
Withhold from Assert things to Agree with
Change (or alter) Ignore
(Each button is used on each of the following lines consecutively
through all lines before the next button is put in the lines.)
WHO OR WHAT WOULD (goal, ing)_____?
WHO OR WHAT WOULD (goal, ing) NOT_____?
WHO OR WHAT WOULD_____(goal, ing)?
WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT _____(goal, ing)?
WHO OR WHAT WOULD (goal, ing) HELP______?
WHO OR WHAT WOULD HELP______(goal, ing)?
DIRECTIONS
Make the button form and the goal form into a sensible sentence in each
line. Pc must be able to answer it.
Don't take up the lines with the pc out of session or in session
before you list. Do the lines very well before you even go near a session
with your pc. Then, in actual auditing and listing the first time through,
after pc has answered the last line fully to his or her satisfaction, clear
the command of the next line with the pc. Don't alter its sense. Just
arrange its word-form so pc can answer it. Then list it and so on. Take up
the lines with the pc as you come to them in auditing and not before.
Take a number of stiff cards, any standard size such as 5" x 7". Write
a line across the top of each card, the long way.
Number the cards in the upper right-hand corner, consecutive from the
first lines above.
In auditing place the card stack on the table. As each card is answered
with any items pc has, turn it over, face down, on top of the last cards
done so as to preserve numerical order.
Take a pencil or ball-point. Make a small slant mark (/) for each item
pc gives you in answer to auditing question.
Take more than one item per question if given. Take items until pc
begins to comm lag. Then turn card to next question and use that as before.
Do not leave items unaccepted.
Do not write down items. Only make a small slant mark (/) for each item
given. For every fifth item, cross out the preceding four.
For the first run of slant (/) marks use a black pencil. For the second
run when the whole card is filled with black, overstrike with a red pencil
using the same system. For the third run when the card is black and red
filled, start again with a green pencil. This should give around 800 items
to one card, which should be enough. Cards that drop behind can then be
spotted in cleaning up free needles and questioned. Only the 1st 12 cards
should have parity.
Pcs should buy their own cards or pay for them in student auditing.
Use rubber bands to enclose cards between sessions. Mark pc's name and
date on the 1st card.
Don't challenge pc's answers. Take all the items pc will give you.
Don't force pc to give you items.
If pc objects to the wording of a line as unanswerable try to make it
answerable by rewording or omit it. Mark F on card each time the line
produces a Free Needle. Don't list beyond a Free Needle. Leave card in
stack and test each time through.
Make the goal fire well by Tiger Drill at the start of each listing
session and at the end after end ruds and before room rud.
Get in Mid Ruds with "Since the last time I audited you", if pc is
upset or can't seem to get on with listing.
If a line continues Free Needle after a question is asked, don't force
pc to answer it.
LRH :drjh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 OCTOBER AD12
BPI
WHEN YOU NEED REASSURANCE
(Cancels HCO Bulletin of September 27, AD12, "Dream Come True".)
When you hear people growling, when the lines are all awry, when the
auditor has flubbed and the world of Scientology looks black, just remember
that in the dozen years of sometimes despairing work and heart-breaking set-
backs, the dream has yet come true. We have it now. We can and are clearing
them all-and you.
In Scientology just remember this when all looks dark:
IT WILL ALL COME OUT ALL RIGHT.
LRH:jw.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright Q 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6210C02 SHSBC-196 3GA Listing Lines by Tiger Buttons
** 6210C02 SHSBC-197 3GA Listing Session-Listing Lines by
Tiger
Buttons-2nd Lecture
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 OCTOBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
TIGER DRILLING
I recently noticed that a pc's goal at start of listing sessions was
only rock slamming or ticking, and the pc's TA very high.
I told the auditor to clean it up so it would read with rockets. I told
her to stress failed to reveal, invalidate and careful of.
Here is the auditor's note giving result.
Dear Ron,
Thanks for your note re Jane.
The RS on her goal showed up during the 13 buttons + and-, in the body
of the question, and I had seen it earlier in tiger drill on the goal, but
not since.
I did work those 3 buttons (f to r, careful of and inval) hard in
yesterday's session; got a cleaner read on the goal, but no rocket. Today,
I reworked specifically the auditing in which the goal was found, after
which it read with a slow only; then the listing, and got one small rocket
a trifle latent; then did instructor's check and got a small instant fall.
(The auditor who found the goal RSed. Uncovered more invalidations in that
bit of auditing, and got the rest of the inadvertent missed W/H from the
time during listing when she thought the goal had blown.)
TA came down to 2.25, and we listed about 900 goals in the remaining
1l/4 hours with TA 2.25 - 3.25, (.5 - .65 per 20 min), needle looser and
clean.
Love,
Donna.
GOAL WORDING
Here is the case of an altered goal wording which kept the pc from
going clear over four months of constant auditing:
Dear Ron,
Further to my letter of yesterday I had a wonderful session with Esta
today. The Tone Arm came down from 5 - 3 and a stuck needle went free.
I was running "Since April 1962 (1 month before goal was found) on the
goal 'To express myself' what has been agreed upon," and the stuck point
and the missed withhold emerged and I pulled it.
After the goal was found in May (by another auditor) Esta was run on 4
lines but the goal was altered from "Myself" to "Himself". Esta agreed to
this but thereafter ran himself instead of herself. She cognited she had
partially gone into her son's valence and had been trying all the time to
clear her son and other sons. She had been sitting there wanting to get
clear herself and instead was running himself. Since then she had been
avoiding auditing until now, and searching for herself. The missed withhold
was herself as a result of the substitution of himself.
This also restimulated her Rock-for this was a Sun-but her goal was before
the Rock.
There was an RS on Son/Sun. Esta cognited she had switched valences
from "Myself" to "Himself".
So there has been this missed W/H since last May. She had identified
with Son/Sun as a first creation.
Her goal is now reading well.
So it proves over and over again the terrible importance of not
altering goal wordings and getting the lines exactly right.
It was a Session which seemed like a miracle.
All my love, Ron,
Anne.
NEW LINE LISTING
And here is what happens when a goal is right and is made to read well
at session beginning and is listed as per HCO Bulletin of 1 October 1962:
Dear Ron,
I listed on the new lines today. It really was marvellous. I must have
listed around about 1500 items and on one line I went up to 75 items before
I comm-lagged. The big thing I noticed, Ron, was that I didn't have to
"think" or figure-figure on what the lines were about. I just dealt the
items off my bank (like you say). Once my auditor cleared the questions
with me and I had the understanding of it, I was away. I knew when I had
given him all the items and I just stopped. It really was very textbook.
Not much 2-way comm, my auditor occasionally asking me-"How I was doing"
and me just sitting there chanting items. Marvellous-Thanks Ron.
Love,
Irene.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
3-4 October 1962
** 6210C03 SH TVD-15A Prepchecking a Goal, Part I
** 6210C03 SH TVD-15B Prepchecking a Goal, Part II.
** 6210C04 SHSBC-198 Modern Security Checking
** 6210C04 SHSBC-199 Making a Goal Fire
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 OCTOBER AD 12
CenOCon
Sthil Students
Registrars IMPORTANT
Saint Hill Grads
HCO Secs
Assn & Org Secs
HGC CLEARING
The plan of HGC Clearing is simple and direct but unless it is
scrupulously followed, it will cause upset and dissatisfaction.
If a Central Org is not clearing the public, the public will be upset
with it. This is the simple matter of the penalty of not-auditing.
You can make lots of Clears on the staff or in special cases but if you
do not do routine clearing in an HGC you will continue to have trouble.
As only recent Saint Hill Graduates are qualified to find goals-in
actual fact, they are the only ones who safely can-the backbone of an HGC
is a Saint Hill Graduate.
No Saint Hill Graduates can be D of P or D of T at this time, and may
be Technical Directors or Association or Organization Secretaries only with
my specific permission. This will hold true until the scarcity is solved.
The primary appointment of a Saint Hill Graduate in an Organization is
"Goal Finder" in the HGC. When enough exist in an Organization to fill the
bare needs of the HGC, then a Saint Hill Graduate will be appointed Staff
Staff Auditor as per Staff Clearing Program HCO Policy Letter of September
10,1962.
The HGC system is therefore as follows:
HPA or HCA Staff Auditors do the following:
1. Handle any CCH case.
2. Give Problems Intensives.
3. Give the "In Auditing" and "On Goals" and past goals Goals
Prepcheck (TV Demo tape 3 October 1962 and other lectures of the
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course). This includes all old goals
that were found or went out hard.
4. Do the required 850 goals list.
5. List goals to clear.
At this point, unless the goal was found in 3 above (not 4 above), the
HPA/HCA staff auditor turns the pc over to the Goal Finder. This can happen
at any time that the Goal Finder has time available.
Once the pc is turned over to the Goal Finder he or she receives no
further auditing from other staff auditors, only the Goal Finder. The Goal
Finder takes the new pc the moment the last pc's goal was found.
There is no extra charge for the Goal Finder's Auditing and the auditing
time of a Saint Hill Graduate may not be sold as such by an HGC. The Goal
Finder's Units may be high. The Goal Finder may not take private pcs on his
or her own. There may be no part-time HGC Goal Finders. Any Sthil Graduates
willing to work part-time to help the Organization should be assigned to
the Staff Training Program or the Academy to heighten the level of
technology. An exception is the auditing of staff members,
particularly the Organization or Association Secretary. Part-time Saint
Hill Graduates may not be used in the HGC.
FEES
A Central Organization or City Office does not sell auditing hours by
the hour ever. It sells (1) Clearing (2) De-Suppression (3) Longevity. It
sells these by Intensives as always. It cannot sell "Ten Hours from a Saint
Hill Graduate" or charge fees "for special auditing by a Saint Hill
Graduate".
Goals finding by an HGC is only undertaken as a part of the clearing
assembly line. One cannot come into an HGC just to have a goal found or
checked and get other auditing elsewhere. The practice would be very
pernicious and result in few clears and many wrecked cases.
A Saint Hill Graduate's auditing time is available in the HGC only if
the pc signs the Clearing Contract ("We take Full Responsibility for
Clearing you"). Then the person who signed the contract is put on the
assembly line for clearing. This policy is not to be varied in any way.
Casual pcs coming in for intensives who do not sign the Clearing
Contract must sign up for Intensives as always.
All former "Estimate of number of hours" procedures are now abandoned
due to effectiveness of pulling Missed W/Hs and a modem Problems Intensive.
A pc signing up for health reasons is just given a routine Missed W/H
check and a Problems Intensive. The same is done for Geriatric Cases
(longevity of life).
So a pc signs up in the HGC either for Clearing and is put on the
Assembly Line, or for Intensives and is given Missed Withholds and a
Problems Intensive by an HPA/HCA and is made satisfied by good technical
application in either case.
Single hours of auditing may not be sold by a Central Organization,
City Office or District Office "to see how it goes". It's Intensives or
nothing.
CLEARING ASSEMBLY LINE
Clearing is sold by Intensives, purchased when auditing is available. A
careful log of time is kept. This is TIME IN THE HGC, not time for this or
that.
The pc buys one or more intensives and is handed over to the D of P.
The D of P thereafter tells the pc what the pc gets and assigns the pc
as necessary.
The line is regulated by the number of Goal Finders and the Goal Finder
time available.
Care is taken not to waste the pc's time. Depending on state of case
and lack of Goal Finder time available, the pc has the following, some of
it or all of it, done.
1. Missed Withholds and Hav process found.
2. Problems Intensive.
3. (For a long-time pc, Dianeticist or Scientologist.) One or more
Intensives cleaning up "In Auditing" and "In Self-Auditing",
Prepchecks.
4. Do an 850 goals list.
5. (For pcs who have had former goals found, wrongly or
otherwise.) Prepcheck on the goal or goals, each one
chronologically cared for (1st one taken up first, etc).
6. (For pcs who have been listed on goals or wrong goals and not
to clear.) Prepcheck on the Auditing of goals, listing, etc.
7. Tiger Drill on every button (on suppress has anything been
suppressed, etc).
8. Straighten up pc's HGC time with a Prepcheck.
All the above are HPA/HCA actions. They are not done by the Goal
Finder. If they have to be done, the Goal Finder turns the pc back to
HPA/HCAs.
The moment a Goal Finder has completed finding and checking a goal or
finding one which must wait for checking by another Goal Finder, the Goal
Finder grabs another pc out of the HGC or has one called in. No Goal Finder
time is wasted. This may become the source of much sweat and urgency by HGC
Admin, but Goal Finder time must be salvaged by grabbing up pcs for him or
her.
The Goal Finder uses current methods to find the goal and check it out.
The moment that action is done the pc is returned to an HPA/HCA for a
Prepcheck on the goal and listing it.
The Goal Finder must review the lines and personally see the goal fire
before permitting it to be listed and must see the pc's folder routinely to
make sure it is going well.
All further Prepchecking and listing is done by HPA/HCAs.
The freeness of needle is checked by the D of P.
The goal is fully Tiger Drilled and Prepchecked after the needle goes
free on all lines.
This is the Assembly Line for Clearing. The Goal Finder is on no other
line, does no other auditing. The only way the pc can be on this line is by
signing a Clearing Contract.
FORMS
A form for each pc undergoing clearing, giving the steps, must be part
of the pc's folder and kept up by the auditor. This is based on the above
data.
If a pc has had a recent Problems Intensive and now signs a Clearing
Contract this is made part of the Clearing rundown. If done, however, by an
outside auditor, the pc must be given another Problems Intensive.
A Special Form showing all steps and evidence of a clear must be sent
to me.
The idea is to get results, to turn out clears and to keep HPA/HCAs
well occupied and at a high technical level.
ACCIDENTAL GOAL FINDING
It will happen that in cleaning up old goals found or even by sudden
disclosure, the HPA/HCA staff auditor may find a goal that fires and is the
goal. If so, it is checked out by the Goal Finder and listed unless other
orders are given regarding the pc (such as unburdening the goal).
HPA/HCAs are not, however, to attempt to find goals at this time and it
is highly illegal for an HGC to employ non-Saint Hill Graduates to find
goals no matter what the public pressure. It could be very destructive to
Scientology to have a lot of wrong goals about or getting listed.
In due course this last injunction will be released so far as Tiger
Drilling the 850 list by HPA/HCAs is concerned. But wait until technology
is better. This will apply only to experienced staff auditors.
METERS
Only the latest Mark Meters are to be used by Goal Finders. Mark IV and
onwards may be used by HPA/HCAs.
It would be dishonest to use less.
SUMMARY
HGCs must afford public Clearing of individuals. Clearing Co-Audits of
the public are a special role and are to be relegated to District Offices
as soon as possible. It is no part of my plans to retain them in a Central
Org or City Office.
Only the highest technology and most exact adherence to policy can keep
us afloat at this time. These are not ordinary policies. These are survival
itself for Scientology.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
9-11 October 1962
** 6210C09 SHSBC-200 Future Org Trends
** 6210C09 SHSBC-201 Instructors' Bugbear
** 6210C11 SHSBC-202 3GA Goals Finding
** 6210C11 SHSBC 203 3GA Goals Finding
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER AD 12
sthil
PROCESSES
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
(Effective at once)
X Processes
The X Unit Processes shall consist of processes as follows:
1. Security Check by Rock Slam, with an adequate report of results in
the student's folder. This is done in Model Session with Meter.
2. Model Session and Havingness Processes. All with Meter.
3. Liberal use of Random Rudiments and Middle Rudiments.
All X Processes are done with full use of the E-Meter.
Rudiments and results will be routinely observed and reported on by the
Auditing Supervisor.
Students apparently not yet capable of getting rudiments in, handling
auditing cycle and making the pc feel and look better will be promptly
G.A.E.ed without waiting for end of week.
Rock Slammers, before being so designated, must be retested by the
Auditing Supervisor. Rock Slammers may be specially designated in auditing
assignment.
Y Unit Processes
The Y Unit carries out the following schedule only:
1. With Meter, in metered Model Session, fully clean missed withholds
from the pc with any version of the following questions: "What have we
failed to find out about you?" "What has an auditor failed to find out
about you?" "What have I failed to find out about you?"
2. With Meter, in otherwise unmetered Model Session, list and assess by
elimination the following question, "In this lifetime what change have
you decided to make? When was that?"
3. Complete the Problems Intensive (Routine 2A) using the Meter only to
make sure of TA action, otherwise the Model Session and running to be
done without recourse to needle.
The above should be less than 25 hours of auditing, 3 to 5 hours for
missed w/hs and 20 to 22 for the Problems Intensive.
Leaving withholds missed, a wrong assessment, failure to get TA motion,
or failure to get spectacular results on the pc will G.A.E. the student to
the X Unit.
This Problems Intensive and the pulling of missed withholds are and
will be fundamental Academy and HGC actions, so the student should become
expert in them.
Z Unit Processes
The Z Unit is totally concerned with current rundown of Routine 3GA.
If the student fails to get the Detested Person, Dynamic and Item of
the pc within 30 auditing hours, the student is G.A.E.ed to the Y Unit.
LRH :gl.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 OCTOBER AD12
Sthil
Franchise Airmail
GOAL FINDER'S MODEL SESSION
Where the pc has been well Prepchecked and is well under auditor
control, a Goal Finder in a 3GA session may omit rudiments in Model
Session, using only goals for session, and havingness, goals and gains at
end and General O/W, Mid Ruds and Random Ruds where needed in the session.
This salvages about an hour's auditing time per day. Start and end of
session commands are used, just no rudiments; General O/W may be found
necessary on some pcs at session start in lieu of rudiments to get a
cleaner needle.
This does not apply to Rudiments and Havingness Sessions or Prepcheck
Sessions and Problems Intensives.
For a pc who is well smoothed out by staff auditors, then, and who is
well under the Goal Finder's control, the following may be used,
particularly with a Mark V Meter.
GOAL FINDER'S MODEL SESSION
Usual session start, adjust chair, squeeze cans and put in the R
Factor:
GOAL FINDER: "Is it all right if I start this session now?" (If so) (Tone
40) "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?" If pc says No, say, "We
will cover it in a moment," and run General O/W after goals are set.)
GOAL FINDER: "What goals would you like to set for this session?" "Are
there any goals you would like to set for life or livingness?"
Goal Finder inspects needle. If rough, or if session didn't start for pc:
GOAL FINDER: "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?'" (Runs it very permissively until needle looks smooth.) "If it
is all right with you I will give these questions two more times and then
end this process."
"Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?"
(Not Tone 40.) "End of Process. We will now (whatever it is they were going
to do)."
Mid Ruds
Use either "Since the Last Time I audited you ......" (usually the
first time used in the session) or "In this session ....." for the Middle
Rudiments "has anything been ......" (suppressed, invalidated, suggested)
and "is there anything you have ......." (failed to reveal, been careful
of).
Random Rudiment: "Have I missed a withhold on you?" or "In this session
have you
thought, said or done anything I failed to find out?"
Ending the Session
The Goal Finder closes the body of the session with "Is it all right
with you if we
end off ........now?" "Is there anything you would care to ask or say
before I do so?" "End of ........."
(Goal Finder observes pc. If pc very agitated Goal Finder does General O/W
as above. If needle rough but pc not bad, Goal Finder puts in Mid Ruds with
"In this session".)
GOAL FINDER: (Adjusting Meter) "Please squeeze the cans." (If squeeze test
not all right, Goal Finder runs pc's havingness until can squeeze gives an
adequate response.)
GOAL FINDER: "Have you made any part of your goals for this session?" "Have
you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?"
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?"
"Here it is: (Tone 40) END OF SESSION."
"Has the session ended for you?" (If not, repeat it. If session still not
ended, say, "You will be getting more auditing.") "Tell me I am no longer
auditing you."
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:gl.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 3GA
LISTING
The reason some pcs go to clear on listing and the reason some don't at
once lies entirely with the auditor.
The dominant rules are two:
1. Don't force the pc to list more items than he has, and
2. Don't prevent the pc from giving items.
The number of ways an auditor can dream up, or overlook, to violate 1
and 2 above are countless.
Example:
If pc can't answer the line easily skip, omit or change it, DON'T Tiger
Drill it to force an answer.
LISTING IS NOT PREPCHECKING. You don't wait for the pc to say he has no
more before you stop asking a line. THE AUDITOR REGULATES HIS QUESTION BY
THE PC'S COMM LAG. When the pc first comm lags (without asking for a repeat
of the Line wording) the auditor comes off the line. The auditor doesn't
ask the line again just "to make sure" or ask the pc "do you have any
more". Asking it again when the pc has comm lagged leaves, amongst other
things, an unanswered auditing question.
The line is asked. The pc answers until he or she comm lags. The
auditor then acks and goes instantly to next line. If the pc says he has
more on the old line, the auditor says "sorry" and takes them.
A LINE IS RUN TO FIRST COMM LAG. How long is a comm lag? It is the
pause before the strained grope.
A pc's decline in answering goes as follows:
1. Bright rapid giving.
2. Comm lag while looking.
3. Groping for more.
4. Comm lag while groping.
5. Can't quite say it.
6. Starts picking up and rejecting.
From 3 above onward the auditor is at fault. Right at the end of 2 the
auditor acks and gives the pc the next line.
The auditor takes only the bright, easily gotten flows.
If the pc goes fumbling and groggy the auditor is at fault and is doing
wrong.
Listing is a rapid action. The way to keep it rapid is to deftly see
that the pc has given all and then get out of there!
Auditors whose pcs dope and grope will soon have pcs that mope.
The auditor avoids Q and A. The auditor never repeats an item back to
the pc or asks if it fits on the line. The auditor's role is permissive
with good presence.
If the auditor does not understand an item he or she says so but does
not include any repeat of the item in saying so. That's evaluation.
Listing is slightly contrary to early auditing philosophy. Then, if the
pc protested, the auditor forced the pc to answer. In listing this is never
done.
Then, if the pc comm lagged, the auditor flattened it. In listing one
never flattens a comm lag. One shifts the moment the first comm lag
appears, but without startling the pc.
Listing auditing is different. The pc is always right. In listing if
you trick a pc into more items and prevent the pc from giving those items
he has readily to hand, the whole case may have to be patched up before it
will clear.
It is so easy to list right as an auditor that many will fumble all
over the place before they get the knack. And almost all errors will be
additive errors.
Listing is the biggest barrier to clear now that we can find goals.
Other listing methods may appear, but these will only alter What lines.
Nothing is going to alter the above, so you better learn it.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: gl.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise
AUDITOR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND
If a pc says something and the auditor fails to understand what the pc
said or meant, the correct response is:
"I did not (hear you) (understand what was said) (get that last)."
To do anything else is not only bad form, it can amount to a heavy ARC
break.
INVALIDATION
To say, "You did not speak loud enough_____" or any other use of "you"
is an invalidation.
The pc is also thrown out of session by having responsibility hung on
him or her.
The Auditor is responsible for the session. Therefore the auditor has
to assume responsibility for all comm breakdowns in it.
EVALUATION
Far more serious than invalidation above, is the accidental evaluation
which may occur when the auditor repeats what the pc said.
NEVER repeat anything a pc says after him, no matter why.
Repeating not only does not show the pc you heard but makes him feel
you're a circuit.
The highest advance of 19th Century Psychology was a machine to drive
people crazy. All it did was repeat after the person everything the person
said.
Children also do this to annoy.
But that isn't the main reason you do not repeat what the pc said after
the pc. If you say it wrong the pc is thrown into heavy protest. The pc
must correct the wrongness and hangs up right there. It may take an hour to
dig the pc out of it.
Further, don't gesture to find out. To say, pointing, "You mean this
item, then," is not only an evaluation but a nearly hypnotic command, and
the pc feels he must reject very strongly.
Don't tell the pc what the pc said and don't gesture to find what the
pc meant.
Just get the pc to say it again or get the pc to point it out again.
That's the correct action.
DRIVING IN ANCHOR POINTS
Also, do not shove things at a pc or throw things to a pc. Don't
gesture toward a pc. It drives in anchor points and makes the pc reject the
auditor.
ROCK SLAMMER
The reason a person who Rock Slams on Scientology or auditors or the
like can't audit well is that they are wary of a pc and feel they must
repeat after the pc, correct the pc or gesture toward the pc.
But Rock Slammer or not, any new auditor may fall into these bad habits
and they should be broken fast.
SUMMARY
A very high percentage of ARC breaks occur because of a failure to
understand the pc.
Don't prove you didn't with gestures or erroneous repeats.
Just audit, please.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B is reissued verbatim as HCO B 23 May 1971, Issue VI, Basic
Auditing Series 6, Auditor Failure to Understand It is also edited for use
on the HQS Course as HCO B 25 October 1971, Issue III, Auditor Failure to
Understand.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 18 OCTOBER AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GA
LISTING BY PREHAV
If your pc is not doing well in listing the goal on any earlier system
(particularly the 114 lines which haven't done well at all in auditors'
hands) the following line system should work. Prehav levels were the
original breakthrough on clearing.
Take the old Auxiliary Prehav Scale. Just do an ordinary Assessment by
Elimination (no reference to the goal). (It is possible some change will be
made in this but it will do for now.)
Fit the resulting level into the following lines. Make sure it makes
sense and makes sense to the pc. Any alteration of the word must register
as well as the original word found when you add (ing) or vary its
participle:
(System of Marking Cards same as 114 Line HCO Bulletin)
(Blanks refer to Prehav Level)
1. Who or what would________(goal)?
2. Who or what would not________(goal)?
3. Who or what would (goal)________?
4. Who or what would (goal) not________?
5. Who or what would oppose________(goal)?
6. Who or what would not oppose________(goal)?
7. Who or what would________opposition (goal)?
8. Who or what would not________opposition (goal)?
(Omit effect wording lines of goal if no effect wording exists.)
9. Who or what would________(effect wording of goal)?
10. Who or what would not ________(effect wording of goal)?
11. Who or what would (effect wording of goal)________?
12. Who or what would (effect wording of goal) not________?
13. Who or what would oppose________(effect wording of goal)?
14. Who or what would not oppose________(effect wording of goal)?
15. Who or what would________opposition (effect wording of goal)?
16. Who or what would not________opposition (effect wording of goal)?
17. Who or what would help________(goal)?
18. Who or what would not help________(goal)?
19. Who or what would (goal) help________?
20. Who or what would (goal) not help________?
21. Who or what would help oppose________(goal)?
22. Who or what would not help oppose________(goal)?
23. Who or what would help________opposition (goal)?
24. Who or what would not help________opposition (goal)?
25. Who or what would want (goal)?
26. Who or what would not want (goal)?
27. Who or what would oppose (goal)?
28. Who or what would not oppose (goal)?
(Effect wording lines may be omitted if none exist for goal.)
29. Who or what would want (effect wording of goal)?
30. Who or what would not want (effect wording of goal)?
31. Who or what would oppose (effect wording of goal)?
32. Who or what would not oppose (effect wording of goal)?
Directions
Flatten every level found by going over and over lines until TA action
stops.
Use strike marks as in 114 Line HCO Bulletin. Four slants and a long
cross. Don't use fully written down lists of things pc gives.
Don't demand more than pc has. Don't prevent pc from giving what he has
(such as stopping automaticities of flow). Don't Q and A. Be Permissive
with Presence. Don't get the pc into Protest as Sen will turn on. Fix lines
so pc can answer cleanly, without confusion.
If pc is being shifted from another system of lines, give auditing on
goal a rapid Prepcheck before using this system.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:gl.jh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
23-25 October 1962
** 6210C23 SHSBC-202X 3GA Criss Cross
** 621 0C23 SHSBC-203X 3GAXX Following the Rock Slam
** 6210C25 SHSBC-208 3GAXX
** 6210C25 SHSBC-209 3GAXX Secondary Pre-Hav Scale
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 OCTOBER 1962
Sthil Students
CenOCon R3GA
Franchise Airmail
HCO WW FORM G3, REVISED
FAST GOALS CHECK
(Keep completed form in pc's folder)
This is a rapid checkout of a goal for use by Auditors and particularly
Instructors and Auditing Supervisors. By an Auditor it is done in Model
Session. By an Instructor or Supervisor it is done as a simple checkout.
ALWAYS COMPLETE WHOLE CHECK.
__________________________________________ _____________________
PC's Name Date
__________________________________________
Org Location
Goal_________________________________________________________________
A: Read goal rapidly to pc three times Note reaction and inform pc if in
or out.
B: Repetitive Ruds. (Early reads are acceptable as instant reads on
ruds, not on goal which must be instant only.)
On the goal is there anything you have
1. Suppressed ___________ 4. Invalidated
____________
2. Been careful of ___________ 5. Suggested
____________
3. Withheld ___________ 6. Mistaken ____________
Only when each is clean, go to next and when all clean go to C.
C: Read goal rapidly to pc three times Note reaction and tell pc if in
or out.
D: Do Fast Ruds: In this session (or checkout) is there anything you
have suppressed, suggested, invalidated, failed to reveal or been
careful of? When all nul, go to E.
E: Section E must be read all in one sweep to be valid, with no read on
any rud and a rocket read (sharp downward tick at least 1/4 Of an inch)
each time exactly at end of reading the goal. Don't add in the goal
until all six ruds items read nul in one sweep. Then read the ruds line
and the goal 3 times in one breath.
On the goal __________is there anything you have suppressed, suggested,
invalidated, withheld, mistaken or been careful of? (Goal)___________
(Goal)___________(Goal)___________
If none of ruds in this section reads and goal did read, providing the
meter reading of the check was flawless it is a listable goal.
Goal Checked Out___________________________
Goal Didn't Check Out________________________
LRH :jw.rd _________________________________
Copyright �1962 (Auditor, Auditing Supervisor, Instructor)
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED L. RON HUBBARD
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 OCTOBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
PRE-CLEARING INTENSIVE
(Most appropriate to Z Unit Sthil or HGCs)
On cases that have been run on many clearing procedures or goals or
types of lines or who have had frequent changes of auditors, to speed
eventual clearing, the following can be done:
1. Assess the Pre-Clearing Scale (below) by elimination.
2. Choose a period one month before the first session the person ever
had in Dianetics and Scientology. Use only the month and year.
3. Run the seventeen buttons by Prepcheck on the Command
"Since______(date) in (or on)______(subject from Scale below) is there
anything (or has anything been, as appropriate)______(button)?"
4. Clean once through the buttons only and assess again.
5. Keep the Mid Ruds in.
ASSESSMENT FOR CLEARING INTENSIVE
Auditing Processing
Self-Auditing Working
Clearing Preclears
Dissemination Auditors
Practising Talking
Teaching Goals
Learning Hopes
Living Helping
Intention Finance
Sessions Problems
Courses Sex
Training Dianetics
Processes Scientology
Organizations
LRH:dr.bh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON
HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6210C30 SHSBC-204 Pre-Hav Scales and Lists
** 6210C30 SHSBC-205 Listing Goals
** 6211C01 SHSBC-206 The Missed Missed Withhold
** 6211C01 SHSBC-207 The Road to Truth
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER AD12
CenOCon
Franchise
WRONG GOALS,
IMPORTANCE OF REPAIR OF
(Use of this HCO Bulletin. Get it hat checked on all auditors whether
classed or not. If an auditor is found to have found a wrong goal, make him
or her pass this HCO Bulletin again.)
If a wrong goal has been found on a pc and has been ''confirmed'' as
correct but later refuted, that goal must be Big Tiger Drilled out of
existence, all pain and sensation and meter reaction off, at once.
If a wrong goal has been found on a pc, checked out as correct and
listed, that wrong goal must be Prepchecked out of existence, and all pain,
sensation and reaction on the meter removed and immediately.
These are first, primary, important and mandatory actions. They must be
done at once on the discovery of the wrongness of a goal.
No other action may be done until the above is done. And the above must
be done right now, not "next month when we have an auditor available". And
poetically it should be done by the person who "found" the goal if
immediately available, and should be done in addition to that person's
regular auditing. Even finding the right goal does not straighten out the
"found" wrong ones.
If more than one wrong goal has been found and listed or not, the wrong
goals must be eradicated chronologically, the first wrong goal found is the
first one to be done. The above rules apply as to whether the goal was
listed or not (in other words, what is to be done with each wrong goal is
governed by the first two paragraphs of this HCO Bulletin).
Now these rules are not because of policy. They are technical. And the
technical is extreme in its validity and so this HCO Bulletin becomes
policy because it has such heavy technical validity.
Finding and running wrong goals is very destructive and very dangerous
to a pc's life and health.
The most effective treatment a pc who has had a wrong goal found or run
can have is the eradication of the goal by Big Tiger or Prepcheck. The pc
will get a gain beyond mere repair.
In the presence of a wrong goal found or found and run, no other
processes will work. I.e., a Problems Intensive or General O/W or Missed
W/Hs. The presence of a wrong goal found or found and run will develop a
PTP that stops all further progress. An auditor will just make no headway
on a case that has had a wrong goal found or found and run until one or the
other of the first two paragraphs of this HCO Bulletin has been done
properly.
-------------
SYMPTOMS OF A RIGHT GOAL LISTED WRONGLY
1. TA getting High and Sticky (4.5 or 5) and nothing brings it
down, or TA staying below 2 and nothing brings it up.
2. Pc looking bad, old, grey, weight increasing.
3. Pc acting blowy.
4. More sen than pain on pc.
SYMPTOMS OF A WRONG OR IMPROPERLY CLEANED GOAL UNLISTED
1. Doesn't rocket read and no Prepcheck can make it rocket read
even once out of three times.
2. Checking it gives pc sen only, and no pain during check-out.
3 . Pc blowy.
4. Pc says or feels goal is overwhelming.
5. Pc can't wrap his or her wits around goal.
6. It's not something pc really wanted in this life.
7. Pc has had no pain while auditor was cleaning goal up by
Prepcheck.
8. Pc tries to fit goal into life.
9. Pc has had no cognitions on goal.
10. Pc looks worse than usual.
11. Pc very upset during check-out or in total apathy. (Pc's often
nervous on a right goal during check-out, but with a wrong one pc
is a wreck and very ARC breaky or totally uncaring.)
12. Pc very doubtful as to whether it is or isn't the goal.
13. Pc rock slamming during check-out.
14. Pc has no reality on goal.
15. Pc has to get into a certain position or spot on the time track
to make goal read.
16. Pc very worried about being checked-a lot of anxiety. This sign
also accompanies a goal which is very charged because of poor
prepchecking. When it's the right goal pc is usually calm.
(The above 16 are taken from HCO Tech Letter of October 22, 1962.)
SYMPTOMS OF A WRONG GOAL LISTED
1. TA mostly at 4.5 or 5 (or could be below 2).
2. Pc ARC breaky.
3. Pc blowy.
4. Pc looks very bad, older, greyer, skin tone poor.
5. Pc's eyes watery.
6. Only sensation predominant on list.
7. Pc dizzy.
8. Pc nauseated, or vomiting.
9. Bank getting more solid.
10. Pc gaining weight.
11. Rudiments can't be kept in.
12. Missed W/Hs even when pulled, fail to get pc cheerfully into
session.
SYMPTOMS OF A RIGHT GOAL UNLISTED
1. Goal rocket reads 2 out of three on Instructor's check.
2. Goal rocket reads 2 out of three on check after a Prepcheck on
it.
3. Goal won't go out entirely and if it does it bobs back up.
4. Pc relaxed during check-out, co-operative but not selling the
goal particularly.
5. Pc gets cognitions on the goal.
6. Tiger Drilling, Prepchecking or checking gives pc pain.
7. If sen is on, a clean-up wipes it off and turns it to pain.
8. Pain never wholly vanishes. Handling goal doesn't wipe out all
its pain for very long. Pain always returns even when briefly
departed.
9. Goal goes out and in, sometimes does, sometimes doesn't read.
10. Right goal reads are different. Wrong goal reads are very
constant and rarely rocket after maybe once or twice when found.
11. A rocket read can always be recovered on a right goal even when
it has vanished, right up to the time it vanishes and the pc goes
clear. The rocket read gets shorter, gets early or late, but it
doesn't vanish entirely until the goal is blown.
12. Pc looked better after goal was found.
13. Rudiments easier to keep in.
14. Pc co-operative.
-------------
It is hard for an auditor to get a reality on a goal until he or she
has found a goal.
For experience the auditor tends to hope his or her way through and
trust that "even if it doesn't read, the pc will be disappointed" or the
auditor feels he or she would look bad. To our shame, auditors have faked a
goal to a pc or instructor. Also, an auditor who is green tends to throw
the burden on the checker and do a job that's "good enough for a check".
Only the right goal, reading properly, is "good enough for a check".
An auditor who finds a goal and doesn't get it to read properly before
a check, or who finds a goal and doesn't get it checked by another auditor
who is expert, is irresponsible. And an auditor who will not immediately
sweat to clean up a wrong goal or work overtime and on his own time too to
clean up a wrong goal that's been listed is just not worthy of the name.
--------------
Wrong goals are dynamite.
Prevent them by being properly trained and by doing a good job.
With goals processing in our hands we can deliver results greater than
any ever achieved before anywhere. Thus, such a powerful weapon must also
be respected and used right.
LRH:gl.jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER AD12
Issue II
CenOCon
Franchise Airmail
ROUTINE 3-21
THE TWENTY-ONE STEPS
FINDING GOALS
I have been doing considerable research auditing and case inspection
and have worked out the following method of clearing.
THE TWENTY-ONE STEPS
The first reliable clearing method, 3GA, is to be found, improved, in 3-
21, carrying the pc who can be handled this way, all the way to OT goal by
goal. For the difficult pc it is only varied in Step 4 below, which is
changed on difficult pcs to 3GA XX or variations of it.
Clearing has been improved by the advent of Tiger Drilling and Goals
Prepchecking and by new data on finding goals and on listing. The greatest
hold-up in clearing was lack of an adequate Prehav Level finding system. I
have now developed this in HCO Bulletin 7 November, Issue III. This will be
of enormous help both in finding Rock Slams to find goals and running out
goals when found.
There is, however, no substitute for a well trained, accurate auditor
out to help the pc. This is a fully understood requisite to this method.
The method is briefly as follows:
1. Tiger Drill or Prepcheck out of the way any earlier found goals
in accordance with HCO Bulletin 7 November AD12, Issue I.
2. Prepare the pc with a Problems Intensive, new style.
3. Have pc do a goals list 850 long.
4. Tiger Drill goals from goal 1 on forward. (Do not preselect
goals to be TDd ever on any list just do the list.) Stop at that
goal which won't go out by TD, and which can be made to Rocket Read
occasionally. (Only this step (4) is changed on a tougher pc when
it includes different goal finding methods.)
5. Prepcheck that goal until it Rocket Reads with consistency.
6. Take the basic four lines
1. WHO OR WHAT WOULD WANT______________________
2. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT WANT _________________
3. WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE_________________ING
4. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT OPPOSE ____________ING
and list and nul each one to an Item.
Do a list of around 100.
Do a routine assessment on each. If more than one stay in, take the
one that reads best as the Item. (If the pc's early lists, on a pc
whose goal has been found for some time, are missing or unavailable
do this step just as above. Otherwise use old written lists as in
footnote below.)
7. Repeat 6 above.
8. When pc's tone arm ceases to be active (with all rudiments in
and goal firing on 6 and 7) do a Roll Your Own Prehav Assessment
(see next HCO Bulletin) on the goal.
9. Use the lines
1. WHO OR WHAT WOULD (GOAL) (LEVEL)?
2. WHO OR WHAT WOULD (GOAL) NOT (LEVEL)?
3. WHO OR WHAT WOULD (LEVEL) (GOAL)?
4. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT (LEVEL) (GOAL)?
and do a written list for each and assess as in 6 above. The lines
must make sense to the auditor as well as the pc and be answerable
without distorting goal. If the PH Secondary Level is changed in
prefix or suffix or tense make sure it reads as well as the
original.
10. When TA ceases to move on 9 do a new Roll Your Own Prehav and
repeat 9.
11. Continue as in 9 and 10 until pc is having no trouble whatever
in spotting and blowing items.
12. When last PH Level has taken all motion out of TA by 9, 10, and
11 is evident, get a new Roll Your Own Prehav and proceed using the
lines of 9 but no longer writing down items, using the pages of
composition book and four slant marks with a fifth crossing them
out as a tally.
13. When neither old nor new Prehav Levels can any longer be made
to react on the goal and the needle is free, Prepcheck the auditing
on the goal.
14. When the auditing is clean, Prepcheck the goal.
15. Test all previous Prehav Levels for the goal and have somebody
qualified inspect and attest the absence of goal read and the
freeness of the needle. This is a first goal clear.
16. Repeat all above steps for the second goal.
17. Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the third goal as feasible.
18. Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the fourth goal as feasible.
19. Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the fifth goal as feasible.
20. Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the sixth goal as feasible.
21. Find consecutive goals as feasible and run them out.
Tips: The cardinal rule of listing is to never demand more than the pc
has and never prevent the pc from giving items he or she does have.
Keep the pc in session, but don't use the Mid Ruds to punish the pc
every time the pc originates.
If the pc gets very ARC Breaky and missed W/Hs don't cure it, then in Step
4 you have passed the pc's goal in the last page or two, so get Suppress
and Protest clean and redo them.
In Tiger Drilling the goal is always ahead of you, never behind you.
You leave nothing behind you on the goals list.
Keep a careful record of the PH Primary and Secondary Levels run or
used in any way.
Treat a pc's goals and Items lists like jewelry. Don't lose them.
-------------
Above, we have a highly standard clearing procedure, the best of
everything that has worked. Only the four lines in 6 and 9 are subject to
change.
On the easy case this is the best rundown for finding goals and
clearing.
More difficult cases are characterized by two things-(a) pc's needle is
occasionally very dirty, or (b) goals go out hard on Tiger Drilling. These
are the only two guiding points which dictate a change. Even so only Step 4
above is changed (finding the goal).
Even if some other method than Step 4 is used to attain the goal, the
rest of the above is still followed. I surmise that on less easy pcs only
the first goal will require other goal finding than Step 4 and that the
above holds good for all second goals onward for all pcs. This however is
only a surmise and other means than Step 4 may be needed on some second
goals.
Therefore, today, we have no variation from the above except in
actually finding the goal. Further about 50% (at a guess) of one's pcs
require no variation from the above to find or run a goal.
As more data becomes available some of the above can be expected to be
modified in the interests of speed and positive results. But the Twenty-One
Steps are based on vast quantities of experience and data.
--------------
Note: Where a pc has had his goal found some time ago and written lists
exist for the first four lines, recover these lists and take them in
consecutive sections of 100 and nul them by usual means to an Item.
Then, again in rotation, take the next 100 and nul each to an Item. The
lists however must be from the correct wording of the goal, not an earlier
variation as they then would not apply. In the latter case do only the
steps as above.
--------------
ROCK SLAMMING ITEMS
Note: Items in the Twenty-One Steps which Rock Slam when found in
listing the goal may have to be opposed or otherwise handled to discharge
them. (See forthcoming HCO Bulletins on 3GA XX.)
LRH :jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER AD12
Issue III
CenOCon
Franchise Airmail
"ROLL YOUR OWN" PREHAV
(Cancels all earlier HCO Bulletins on how
to do a Prehav Assessment)
Roll Your Own Prehav Assessment has been developed:
(a) To avoid lengthy Prehav Assessments,
(b) To get much more accurate levels for the pc for use in both
finding and listing out goals, and
(c) To enter the Rock Slam channel easily.
The assessment is done on any available or special Prehav Scale for the
purpose of the assessment. (For instance the 1st 65 levels of the Auxiliary
Prehave Scale.)
The assessment follows the exact steps below:
HOW TO DO ONE
It is very easy to do a Prehav Assessment. It is not so easy to do a
completely accurate one.
When clearing is going hard, the most likely source of error is the
Prehav Assessment. It is ridiculously easy for an auditor to make a bad
one. The Preclears attention hangs up on a button he tells himself isn't it
and the invalidation makes it stay in and voila you have a wrong
assessment.
Like goals, a Prehav Assessment must be kept clean of Tiger Drill
buttons.
You get a wrong assessment if the pc has invalidated or protested a
button. Or if he or she has suppressed the right one. Also if too many
levels are staying in or too many are going out, the Mid Ruds are out.
A Prehav Assessment requires careful auditing. Only experience can give
an auditor the full data.
TERMS
Prehav Scale = Any scale giving degrees of doingness or not doingness.
Level = Any doingness or not doingness on the scale. Any word in the
scale itself.
Assessment = Any method of discovering a level on the scale for a given
pc.
Read = Any reaction of the needle different from its regular action for
the pc, occurring during or slightly after a level has been called.
Mid Ruds = The middle rudiments of the current model session.
Tiger Drill = That series of buttons which are capable of preventing a
right goal or level from reading or making a wrong level read, combined in
an appropriate exercise.
THE MOST ACCURATE ASSESSMENT
Realize that the most accurate assessment of a Prehav Scale would be by
the Tiger Drilling of each level in turn.
By average, on a rough pc, this would require about one minute per
level. This would be three hours for a 180 level scale.
Unless scales are shorter, assessment by elimination would normally be
faster, if done with due care.
But Tiger Drilling a scale to find a level cannot be ruled out as a
means of finding the real level with superb accuracy.
DOING THE ASSESSMENT
One puts the pc in session, gets the Mid Ruds in, takes a Prehav Scale
and calls out each level once, noting its reaction on the meter.
If the auditor was not sure or didn't see it, the level is called a
second or a third time.
If too many levels go out consecutively, there is a suppress. If too
many levels are staying in, there is another Mid Rud out.
One marks only those that read. Those that do not read are not marked.
A pc has his own Prehav Scale mimeo copy in his folder. This is used
over and over.
The pc's name and date of the first assessment is written at the top of
the mimeo sheet.
A new symbol is used for each consecutive assessment and the level
found on the mimeo sheet and that symbol is marked at the top at the end of
the assessment.
The list is covered once. Those that read are marked in.
The Mid Ruds for the session are put in at the end of the first
nulling.
The list is covered again but only those that stayed in the first time
are now read. If they read again they are again marked in, using the same
symbol.
The list is covered a third time but only those that stayed in the
second time are read and marked in, using the same symbol.
When the list has not more than eight (on a rough pc) and not less than
three levels left in, the remaining levels are Tiger Drilled.
One level will remain-or will react better than the others. Take this
as the PRIMARY LEVEL and mark it in at the top of the mimeo sheet with its
symbol.
ROLL YOUR OWN
In times past, this Primary Level would have been enough, but using the
Prehav to locate the Rock Slam Channel or to list out goals requires a
SECONDARY LEVEL.
To "Roll Your Own" is to get the pc to give you a secondary scale that
is in its turn assessed.
This is done as follows:
Take the Primary Level, found as above. Put it in the sentence "If
somebody were fixated on (or 'wanted to' or 'intended to' or 'wished
to')_______ (Primary Level) what would that person do?" Or use the sentence
"What would ________(Primary Level) represent to you?" The sentence must
cause the pc to give doingness. Otherwise it must be changed, using the
Primary Level, so that the pc does give doingness.
The auditor, as in any assessment, lists down the pc's answers on a 13"
(foolscap or legal) sheet with the pc's name, the date and the question at
the top of it.
When the pc says that's all, the auditor puts in the Mid Ruds and lists
the question against the meter. If the meter reads on the question, the
list is incomplete and must be completed.
When the question gives no read with Mid Ruds in, the list is complete.
This list is now handled exactly as the original scale above.
The resulting level is the pc's level and is used for finding Items in
3GA-XX or in listing out goals. The Primary Level is not otherwise used.
The Secondary List is not used again. A new Primary Assessment is done
for the next full operation. Only these Secondary Levels are actually used
in auditing.
Various Primary Prehav Scales may from time to time be developed for
various purposes.
LRH:gl.bh
Copyright � 1962 L RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 NOVEMBER AD 12
CenOCon
Franchise
SOMATICS
HOW TO TELL TERMINALS AND
OPPOSITION TERMINALS
It is important that a clearing auditor be able to distinguish pain
from sensation, terminals from opposition terminals, and to have the data
at the level of instant knowledge. To understand it less is to invite
serious errors in clearing. Failure to sort terminals from opposition
terminals can confuse the pc or even degrade the case. All a pc's somatics,
deformities and distortions proceed from terminals, opposition terminals
and combination terminals. Thus they are of vast importance to the pc and
the auditor.
DEFINITIONS
SOMATICS = This is a general word for uncomfortable physical
perceptions coming from the reactive mind. Its genus is early Dianetics and
it is a general, common package word, used by Scientologists to denote
"pain" or "sensation" with no difference made between them. To understand
the source of these feelings, one should have a knowledge of engrams,
ridges and other parts of the reactive bank. To the Scientologist anything
is a SOMATIC if it emanates from the various parts of the reactive mind and
produces an awareness of reactivity. Symbol SOM.
PAIN = PAIN is composed of heat, cold, electrical, and the combined
effect of sharp hurting. If one stuck a fork in his arm, he would
experience pain. When one uses PAIN in connection with clearing one means
awareness of heat, cold, electrical or hurting stemming from the reactive
mind. According to experiments done at Harvard, if one were to make a grid
with heated tubes going vertical and chilled tubes going horizontal and
were to place a small current of electricity through the lot, the device,
touched to a body, would produce the feeling of PAIN. It need not be
composed of anything very hot or cold or of any high voltage to produce a
very intense feeling of pain. Therefore what we call PAIN is itself, heat,
cold and electrical. If a pc experiences one or more of these from his
reactive mind, we say he is experiencing PAIN.
"Electrical" is the bridge between sensation and PAIN and is difficult
to classify as either PAIN or sensation when it exists alone. Symbol PN.
SENSATION = All other uncomfortable perceptions stemming from the
reactive mind are called SENSATION. These are basically "pressure",
"motion", "dizziness", "sexual sensation", and "emotion and misemotion".
There are others, definite in themselves but definable in these five
general categories. If one took the fork in the pain definition above and
pressed it against the arm, that would be "pressure". "Motion" is just
that, a feeling of being in motion when one is not. "Motion" includes the
"winds of space", a feeling of being blown upon, especially from in front
of the face. "Dizziness" is a feeling of disorientation and includes a
spinniness, as well as an out-of-balance feeling. "Sexual sensation" means
any feeling, pleasant or unpleasant, commonly experienced during sexual
restimulation or action. "Emotion and Misemotion" include all levels of the
complete tone scale except "pain"; emotion and misemotion are closely
allied to "motion", being only a finer particle action. A bank solidity is
a form of "pressure", and when the sensation of increasing solidity of
masses in the mind occurs, we say "the bank is beefing up". All these are
classified as SENSATION. Symbol SEN.
TERMINAL = An Item or Identity the pc has actually been sometime in the
past (or present) is called a TERMINAL. It is "the pc's own valence" at
that time. In the Goals Problem Mass (the black masses of the reactive
mind) those identities which,
when contacted, produce pain, tell us at once that they are TERMINALS. The
person could feel pain only as himself (thetan plus body) and therefore
identities he has been produce pain when their mental residues (black
masses) are recontacted in processing. Symbol TERM.
OPPOSITION TERMINAL = An Item or Identity the pc has actually opposed
(fought, been an enemy of) sometime in the past (or present) is called an
OPPOSITION TERMINAL. As the person identified himself as not it he could
experience from it only sensation. An OPPOSITION TERMINAL, when its mental
residues (black masses) are recontacted in processing, produces only
sensation, never pain. Symbol OPPTERM.
COMBINED TERMINAL = An Item or Identity the pc has both been and
opposed produces therefore both pain and sensation when it is "late on the
track", which is to say, after the fact of many Terminals and Opposition
Terminals. The Combination Terminal is the closure between Terminal and
Opposition Terminal lines which possesses attributes of both and the
clarity of neither. It signifies a period toward the end of a game. It is
found most commonly when the pc's case is only shallowly entered. They
exist on all cases but are fewer than terminals and opposition terminals.
Symbol COTERM.
ITEM = Any terminal, opposition terminal, combination terminal,
significance or idea (but not a doingness, which is called "a level")
appearing on a list derived from the pc. Symbol It.
RELIABLE ITEM = Any Item that Rock Slams well on being found and at
session end and which was the last Item still in after assessing the list.
Can be a terminal, an opposition terminal, a combination terminal or a
significance, provided only that it was the Item found on a list and Rock
Slammed. Symbol RI.
ROCK SLAM = That needle agitation which erratically covers more than
three quarters of an inch on the E-Meter dial.
A Rock Slam is the response of an E-Meter to the conflict between
terminals and opposition terminals. It indicates a fight, an effort to
individuate, an extreme games condition which in the absence of auditing
would seek unsuccessfully to separate while attacking.
As the pc's attention is guided to the Items involved the games
condition activates and is expressed on the meter as a ragged, frantic
response. The wider the response the more recognizable (to the pc) is the
reality of the games condition and the violence of the conflict.
The Rock Slam Channel is that hypothetical course between a series of
pairs consisting of terminals and opposition terminals.
If the conflict is too great for the pc's reality no Rock Slam results.
Later in auditing as the pc's confronting rises, Items which did not react
earlier in auditing now begin to be real and so express themselves on a
meter as a Rock Slam. The pc with the lowest reality level is the hardest
to attain a Rock Slam on, but in contradiction a pc who has the least
control over himself in certain zones of life has the largest Rock Slams.
The Rock Slam vanishes under Suppression and activates on Invalidate or
Withhold or on other Prehav Levels.
This is the most difficult needle response to find or attain or
preserve. And it is the most valuable in clearing.
All Rock Slams result from a pair of Items in opposition, one of which
is a terminal, the other being an opposition terminal.
It can exist in present time where the pc is the terminal and what the
pc is faced with is the opposition terminal. Symbol RS.
INSTANT ROCK SLAM = That "Rock Slam" which begins at the end of the
major thought of any Item. Symbol IRS.
DIRTY NEEDLE = That erratic agitation of the needle which covers less than
a quarter of an inch of the E-Meter dial and tends to be persistent. Symbol
DN.
DIRTY READ = That more or less instant response of the needle which is
agitated by a major thought; it is an instant tiny (less than a quarter of
an inch) agitation of the needle and is in fact a very small cousin of a
Rock Slam but is not a Rock Slam. It does not persist. Symbol DR.
TESTING
The method of testing for the character of an Item whether Term,
Oppterm or Coterm is extremely simple.
If the Item, when said to the pc in any way, turns on PAIN in the pc's
body it is a TERMINAL.
If the Item, when said to the pc in any way, turns on SENSATION around
or in the pc's body it is an OPPOSITION TERMINAL.
If the Item, when said to the pc in any way, turns on both PAIN and
SENSATION in or around the pc's body it is a COMBINATION TERMINAL.
WAYS OF ASKING
The rule is, "Give the Terminal Cause, the Opposition Terminal Effect in
any listing, wording or use."
The simplest form is, of course, just chanting the Item at the pc a few
times. This is not always workable.
The simplest but not always workable form is:
For a Terminal - "Would a__________commit overts"
For an Opposition Terminal - "Consider committing overts
against__________"
Using PH Level.
Instead of "Committing Overts" the Prehav Level by which the Reliable
Item was found is normally used:
For a Terminal - "Would a_____________(Item)____________(PH Level)" or
"Consider a______________(Item)_______________ing (PH Level)"
For an Opposition Terminal - "Consider_______________ing (PH Level)
a_______________(Item)".
USING TD BUTTONS
The above sentences may also be used, or their rough approximation,
with a Tiger Drill or Prepcheck Button, and if a Rock Slam is present, it
may develop.
No matter what method is being used in saying the Item being tested to
find out if it is a Terminal, Opposition Terminal or Combination Terminal,
the rules of Sensation and Pain apply. Sensation means Oppterm. Pain means
Terminal.
It is important to know if an Item is a Term, Oppterm or Coterm, as its
character as one of the three determines the listing question.
The same rule for testing applies in listing. If it is a terminal, it
(Prehav Levels). If it is an opposition terminal it is (Prehav Leveled).
Example: For a Terminal, A Waterbuck, Prehav Level Snort. Proper
Listing question: "Who or what would a waterbuck snort at?"
Example: For an Oppterm, A Tiger, Prehav Level Snort. "Who or what would
snort at a tiger?"
Of course the reverse can be listed but is rarely necessary except to
get a longer list when the pc stalls.
THE LINE PLOT
A Line Plot must be made up for any pc for his 3GAXX or the Listing the
Goal Steps of Routine 3-21 (Steps 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and II. of 21 Steps).
This consists of a heavy Blue 13" (foolscap or legal) sheet of paper,
kept in the pc's folder and kept up to date every time a Reliable Item (or
even last Item in) is found.
On this Line Plot one column, the left-hand one, is reserved for
Oppterms. The right-hand column is reserved for Terms and lines indicate
whenever Terms or Oppterms are derived from each other.
A Reliable Item is designated as such on this Line Plot with the symbol
RI. Non-Reliable Items are not designated.
The date each Line Plot Item was found is added after the Item so it
can be found again in the auditor's reports without a scramble.
The full behaviour and character of any Item found is written into the
auditor's report of that session in which it was found. The width of the
Instant Rock Slam in inches, whether the slam turned on every time the Item
was read, what wording turned it on, and whether it would still RS by
session end are all made part of the auditor's report.
About 20% or 25% of the cases that appear for clearing can have
Reliable Items found on them at once by exploring the words "Scientology",
"A Scientology Organization", "An Auditor", "Me (the auditor)", "Ron", or
the head of the local Scientology organization by name. These are
considered to be oppterms by any pc whose realization of his goal would be
interfered with, he or she feels, by Scientology. It does not matter what
wording (see above) turns on the RS so long as it can be consistently
turned on for a bit. If it is at first only a Dirty Read, it is Tiger
Drilled to try to make it Rock Slam. Only in this peculiar instance is the
person called a Rock Slammer or is considered a Security Risk. Everyone
alive RSs on something. In any event, if Items such as those in this
paragraph turn on a Rock Slam, they are put on the Line Plot as Reliable
Items and used in handling the case.
The above material is in actual fact a partial anatomy of the Goals
Problems Mass, its identification in auditing and the behaviour of an E-
Meter towards it.
As it has never before been viewed by any practice, mental science or
religion, it has to have special terminology.
The terminology has been stably in use for quite some time in
Scientology. I have made the definitions more precise in this HCO Bulletin.
Anyone working in clearing should have this HCO Bulletin data at his
instant call without referral to the HCO Bulletin.
With very few additions, this is the track one walks in clearing and
going clear.
Know it.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :gl.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 NOVEMBER AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GAXX
STRAIGHTENING UP 3GAXX CASES
(This is an interim HCO Bulletin issued
while the Main HCO Bulletin on Step 4 of
3-21 is in composition.)
All cases being run on Dynamic Assessment must at once begin the
following actions to speed progress.
This applies to cases both before and after the goal has been found.
Any slowdown of a case in running stems from failure to oppterm every
Reliable Item, when found.
Cases develop a "phantom Rock Slam" when this is not done. Further, the
pc is to a greater or lesser degree puzzled as to "what was the package".
Do the following:
1. Make a complete Line Plot for your pc (HCO B 8 November AD12) and get
your already found Terms and Oppterms in the right places and every
Reliable Item noted with RI.
2. Oppterm every Reliable Item found to date, whether in searching for
or listing out the goal.
3. Represent every RI which still has an RS after being opptermed.
Your pc's Line Plot probably currently looks like this:
[pic]
In short, fill in all the blanks where no oppterming was done before.
See HCO Bulletin 8 November AD 12 for all details of how it's done.
Your pc's attention is hung up where you haven't made a pair. The GPM
is full of pairs of terms and oppterms.
The rule is on all future Items: Oppose every Reliable Item. Represent
every one that still RSes when the oppterm or term matching it is found.
LRH: dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON
HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 NOVEMBER AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GAXX
DIRTY NEEDLES AND INCOMPLETE LISTS
HOW TO ASSESS
I have long been aware of the penalties of making Incomplete Lists for
nulling. But only last week did I find the only sources of the DIRTY
NEEDLE.
Most auditors are sitting there beating their pcs to death with Mid
Ruds every time the needle dirties up. This is a Gross Auditing Error. The
auditor who neglects this manifestation of DIRTY NEEDLE is going to wind up
with no Item or RS on his or her pc.
With the single exception of the first entrance to a case, when
cleaning a needle depends on finding an Item, or Item No.1, all DIRTY
NEEDLES STEM FROM INCOMPLETE LISTS OR MISSED ITEMS.
On even rough cases, the complete listing of the first line that will
produce an RS will banish chronically dirty needles. And the dirty needle
won't return until the auditor fails to complete a list.
The best test for a complete list is to nul the first ten items and if
a dirty needle shows up at all (which is to say if the Mid Ruds go out)
then the list must be added to, the Mid Ruds put in and nulling resumed.
DON'T just put Mid Ruds in. You'll ruin them for the pc, get a protest
going and never get anything done.
If the last 6 or 8 Items suddenly collect a necessity to put in Mid
Ruds before you can go on, do the same operation: add to the list, then put
in the Mid Ruds.
It is timesaving to complete the list. Even if it seems longer to nul a
longer list, how can you do it with a Dirty Needle? And you'll come to
nothing anyway.
Sometimes you have to use your judgment and get the Mid Ruds in enough
to coax the pc to list more. But the easy way is to list more and then get
the Mid Ruds in.
ASSESSMENT STEPS
The basic procedure of Assessment is:
(a) Determine the line to be listed (the question).
(b) Clear the question as needful with the pc.
(c) Ask the question often enough to keep the pc going but don't
use it to stop the pc from listing, acknowledge softly if at all
while writing Items or Levels.
(d) When pc says no more, put in the Mid Ruds and see if the
question (a) reacts on the meter. If it does and the reaction is
not an ARC break, continue the listing. If an ARC break, clean it
up and test again. If the question reacts, continue the listing
until pc says no more, get in Mid Ruds and test question.
(e) Repeat (d) if question still reacts after listing.
(f) Start nulling.
(g) If Dirty Needle develops at any stage of nulling, add to list,
get in Mid Ruds and continue nulling.
(h) Nul down to 3 to 8 Items or Levels in. Tiger Drill each Item or
Level in turn. If Dirty Needle develops continue listing, get in
Mid Ruds, come down again to 3 to 8 Items or Levels in and start
Tiger Drilling.
(i) Choose the last Item in. It won't go out if all the above were
done right.
Don't use Mid Ruds or any part of them as a response to a pc origin.
Don't punish the pc for originating or commenting.
DIRTY NEEDLES mean incomplete lists. They don't mean anything else.
A dirty needle can be turned on by very lousy CCHs and very lousy
3GAXX. The usual answer is a good Problems Intensive.
However, one good assessment with the right question, listed to a
complete list and a Reliable Item will turn off the dirtiest needle in
Christendom or China either.
What is a Complete List?
COMPLETE LIST = Any list listed for assessment that does not produce a
Dirty Needle while nulling or Tiger Drilling.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:gl.jh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
13-15 November 1962
** 6211C13 SHSBC-210 The Difficult Case
** 6211C13 SHSBC-211 Entrance to Cases
** 6211C15 SHSBC-212 Terminals
** 6211C15 SHSBC-213 Clearing Technology
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 17 NOVEMBER AD12
CenOCon
Franchise Airmail
ROUTINE 3-21
The following data and other R3-2 1 HCO Bulletins to follow are an
expansion of Routine 3-21 HCO Bulletin of November 7, AD12, Issue II. It
requires a full understanding of that Bulletin as well as HCO Bulletin
November 7, AD12, HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12, HCO Bulletin November 11,
AD12, and HCO Bulletin November 12, AD12.
It is VITAL that pcs being cleared be run only on Routine 3-21 as many
cases have "lost their goals" or become hung up on listing or have failed
to go clear in a reasonable length of time. These difficulties are now
overcome in Routine 3-21, providing the auditing is good. One can get the
pc into difficulties that need repair or skilled re-do by failing to write
down Items listed from the goal as in 114 lines. Routine 3-21 handles all
cases and all cases must be shunted over to it in order to prevent any hang-
up.
DEFINITION: BY-PASSED ITEM
When a list has been made, either in 3GAXX or R3-21 and includes a
Reliable Item (HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12) and that Reliable Item was
not used to find an item in Opposition to it, the Item which was not so
found is called a BY-PASSED ITEM. See HCO Bulletin November 11, AD12. On
the picture in that bulletin the Items with balloons around them are BY-
PASSED ITEMS until found. It is this Item which causes the goal to submerge
when finding or listing. It is this Item (or bad auditing) which causes the
TA to go up and stick. It is the BY-PASSED Item which turns on the constant
sen or pain that does not relieve.
The rule is: Whether in finding items before or after the goal has been
found, all lists must be used to find items and all Reliable Items found
must be used to find their Opposition Item. In short, always nul lists to a
Reliable Item whether listing to find the goal or listing from the goal.
Auditing of the GPM must result in a LINE PLOT no matter how that Line Plot
is achieved. (HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12.) Whether listing Items from
lines to find Rock Slams or from the goal to find them you must wind up
with a written picture of the pc's GPM. This is the Line Plot. It is begun
by 3GAXX in trying to find the goal. It is continued after the goal is
found right down to the Rock and Opposition Rock, the two basic Items of
the GPM. This also applies to goals found in some other way than 3GAXX.
RELIABLE ITEMS (HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12) are ALWAYS IN PAIRS.
Leave one side of these pairs unlocated and you have left the BY-PASSED
ITEM raising the devil with the pc. Always oppose a reliable item whenever
found and you will never leave a BY-PASSED ITEM and the case will run and
clear. This applies both before and after finding the goal.
The difference between the case that lists Items easily to clear and
the case that doesn't is this: The case that just listed to clear without
fuss was able to assemble the pairs (terms and oppterms) as it went. The
case that didn't list straight to clear didn't get the pairs straight and
needed help; this case had BY-PASSED ITEMS, so the Tone Arm went up and
stuck and the goal, overwhelmed, ceased to fire. Using HCO Bulletin
November 11, AD12 version of listing, this shouldn't happen. The pc won't
by-pass one side of a pair and so won't hang up. It is understood that bad
auditing or a wrong goal would also cause a mess.
Thus the second case above-the case where the goal has been listed on and
is hung up and won't fire-is a case of either wrong goal or By-Passed
Items. The remedy is to take the first written lists from the goal and nul
sections of them. Take, for instance, the "Who or What would want the goal"
list and nul down just calling each item out once, about a hundred. When
you have assessed an item on this list (HCO Bulletin November 12) and have
a good Reliable Item, you oppose it (HCO Bulletin November 8) and find, by
making the list of items that would oppose it or it would oppose, the other
part of the pair.
If you don't find the pairs the pc won't go clear but will hang up on
the BY-PASSED ITEM or ITEMS. The more that hang up (by-passed items) the
more unclear your pc will feel.
I've really been lifting the roof trying to find the reason for this
hang-up and there it is. The By-Passed Item keeps cases from going clear.
The exact way to do Routine 3-21 Step 6 is as follows:
(a) Compose the basic four lines using the pc's goal or the goal to be
proven by listing.
(b) Put each line wording at the top of a sheet of paper, a separate
sheet for each basic line. Put pc's name and date and page number on
each sheet.
(c) Take Sheet One and get Items from pc until pc runs out of Items for
that line.
(d) Take next sheet in rotation and list until pc runs out. Continue to
do this until an RS occurs. See next step.
(e) Keep pc on meter, turn sensitivity down a bit so you have no trouble
keeping needle on dial but can still see an RS. (HCO Bulletin November
8 definitions page 2.) As soon as you see an RS continue with that
list. (Be sure RS wasn't just a body movement.) List it down until the
dwindling Rock Slam, if any, is gone. List out any Dirty Reads. In
short, complete any list that RSes. Don't go on to the next list.
(f) Nul the list that RSed. (Get Mid Ruds in, call off each Item once,
leave in all that react on meter. Eliminate these the same way. TD the
last few Items, as per HCO Bulletin November 12, AD12.) Nul to a
Reliable Item.
(g) Establish as per HCO Bulletin November 8 whether RI found is term or
oppterm.
(h) List a list in opposition to it. (If a Term, Who/What would it
oppose; if an Oppterm, Who or What would oppose it.)
(i) Nul list as in (f) and obtain a Reliable Item.
(j) Establish with pc that these two RIs oppose each other and put on
PC'S LINE PLOT.
(k) Nul the remaining lists rapidly looking for an RSing Item. If one
found, repeat step (f) to (g) above. (Experience will tell if this is
necessary on your pc. It may be possible to abandon all lists of Items
done from goal. If so just get four fresh sheets and start again, using
as the first line to list the one most likely to now have a potential
RS.)
(l) Repeat (b) to (k) over and over.
This is New Step 6 Listing.
Keep your rudiments in, don't upset the pc, be sure to note, find and
run out RSes.
URGENT
On ALL pcs whose goals have been found or found and listed by any
earlier procedure, relocate the earliest item lists written from the first
four lines and nul these and oppose the Reliable Items found in every list.
The pc will brighten up and start to make fast progress.
The Goals Problem Mass becomes, in the pc's folder, the Line Plot.
It is safe to do the above on any goal that consistently produces pain
as well as some sen. But beware the moment it goes all sen.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
20-22 November 1962
** 6211C20 SHSBC-214 The GPM
** 6211C20 SHSBC-215 Fundamentals of Auditing
** 6211C22 SHSBC-216 Q & A Period, Part 1
** 6211C22 SHSBC-217 Q & A Period, Part 2
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER AD12
CenOCon
Franchise
URGENT
ROUTINE TWO-TWELVE
OPENING PROCEDURE BY ROCK SLAM
AN HPA/HCA SKILL
Note: Hat Check this HCO Bulletin with a stiff examination before
permitting its use.
Note: This Procedure is to be done on every HGC pc, every course
student of every course as a pc, as early as possible and definitely before
Prepchecking or CCHs. Done correctly it will end the no-results or slow
result case and guarantee faster gain to the fast case. ALL Cases must have
this done at once.
The slow student as well as the slow gainer is always a Rock Slammer.
THE SLOW-GAIN, NO-GAIN CASES
The slow or never gain case has been a target with me for twelve years.
I have now made a breakthrough on this. It is, I'm afraid I have to
tell you, the breakthrough. You could straighten up the head of the Medical
Association with it, it's that powerful. It undercuts all the reasons why.
It must be done on all students. And also every HGC pc.
Unfortunately the solution is similar to a Routine 3 process, but
there's nothing for it but HPAs/HCAs must learn the steps in this HCO
Bulletin if we are to survive. For these skills encompass more than 50% of
the cases, in some areas up to 80%. And these will clear slowly or not at
all unless this first step is taken first. Even a Problems Intensive will
fail on about 30% of these cases.
Here are the progressive data which led to this breakthrough:
DATUM 1953 - A Problem is postulate-counter-postulate.
DATUM 1954-Persons with heavy overts on Scientology make no case
progress. No Case Gain = Suspected Person.
DATUM 1955-A person with a present time problem will get no graph
change.
DATUM 1961-The Goals Problem Mass consists of Items (valences) in
opposition to one another. Any pair of these Items, in opposition to each
other, constitute a specific problem.
DATUM 1961-A person with a hidden standard won't go clear.
DATUM 1962-Rock Slammers. Persons who Rock Slam on Scientology or
associated Items are Security Risks.
DATUM Nov 1962-When a GPM Item Exists in Present Time It Constitutes a
Present Time Problem. If one of the opponents in a Problem (Item versus
Item) is part of the Goals Problem Mass, that problem will not resolve
without resolving at least a portion of the GPM.
DATUM Nov 1962-All non-gain or slow-gain cases have a GPM Item in their
present time environment. The companion or opposing Item to the PTP Item is
buried out of sight.
CONCLUSION-All slow-gain or non-gain preclears have to have the GPM
Item that is in the present time environment located and opposed before
they will make adequate gains in processing or study.
Suddenly it becomes of vital technical interest whether a person is any
variety of
Rock Slammer or not. Before, it and other security measures were only of
administrative interest. Now it is a question of whether or not the case
will ever improve.
Thus we have to have (a) a broadened definition for a Rock Slammer, (b)
an easy method of detecting one and (c) quick procedures to remedy the
condition. We have all these now.
DEFINITION-A ROCK SLAMMER is a preclear who Rock Slams on a Present
Time GPM Item in his or her Immediate Environment.
Until this Item is located and opposed the Rock Slammer will make slow
gains or no gains in clearing.
The Routine 2-12 method of discharging the influence of a Rock Slamming
Item is actually taken from 3GA Criss Cross (3GAXX), and is a specialized
routine from Routine 3. We will, however, since it does not touch goals,
designate it as Routine 2.
This routine will have to be learned by all HPAs/HCAs and used by all
staff Auditors. It does not include clearing. It includes only Item
Assessment. By labelling it Routine 2 it comes within the reach of all
trained auditors.
ROUTINE TWO-TWELVE
1. Make or use a list of Scientology Items. This includes Scientology,
Scientology Organizations, an Auditor, clearing, auditing,
Scientologists, a session, an E-Meter, a practitioner, the auditor's
name, Ron, other Scientology persons, parts of Scientology, past
auditors, etc. (See HCO Bulletin November 24 and subsequent HCO
Bulletins for "Scientology Lists".) The list need not be endless as it
will be easy to catch a trace of the GPM if the person is a Rock
Slammer. The list is composed by the auditor, not the pc.
2. Assess the list, calling each item once (or until auditor is sure of
the read). Eliminate down to the last 3 or 4 items.
3. Tiger Drill the Items still in. Select the one with the biggest dirty
read or the last one to go out or the one that went out hardest. No
matter how faintly or sporadically the Item found now reads, if the
last one in stayed in at all, use it for Step 4 below. If, however, the
Item found in this step produced a good Rock Slam (Reliable Item) omit
Steps 4, 5 and 6 below and do the tests in Step 7 and continue with the
remaining steps. If two RIs are found in this first step, oppose each
one as in Steps 7 onward.
4. Using the Item selected, list a list from the line question "Who or
what does (the Item found in 3) represent to you?" (It can happen that
Steps 4, 5 and 6 are unnecessary. If the Item in Step 3 consistently
Rock Slammed a third of a dial to a dial wide and kept on doing it when
the auditor said "Consider committing overts against _____(the Item
found)", use it instead of doing the Step 4 List. If this Rock Slam is
on and then vanishes even with "Suppress" clean, do Step 4, using the
Item that so slammed but vanished. In doing listing beware of stopping
listing while the needle is still dirty or stopping just because the pc
says the last item was it. (The real RS Item you want usually comes
after the pc says the last one he put on was IT.) (If the pc stops or
refuses to go on, get in your Mid Ruds and continue to list until there
is no dirty needle or RS when pc thinks of Items before saying them to
the auditor.) Mark every Item that RSed or DRed on Listing. While
listing keep the meter at about Sens 8 and keep an eye on it to note
RSs and DRs.
5. Nul the list, saying each Item on it once (or more if the auditor
didn't catch the read). Be sure the Mid Ruds are in. If a dirty needle
turns on while nulling, add to the list, get the Mid Ruds in and test
the question for reaction. If needle reacts to question the list is
incomplete or the pc is protesting the question. Leave any Item in that
reacts. Eliminate all but the last 3 or 4 Items.
6. Tiger Drill the last Items in. Select one Item with the biggest
needle reaction or Rock Slam. (Two Items can appear on any list. If
they both Rock Slam equally and neither goes out, you have found two
Items, in which case you must do the following steps to each.)
7. Find out if Item turned on Pain or Sensation when being Tiger
Drilled, or say it to the pc and find out. If Pain, say to pc,
"Consider_____(Item) committing overts." If Sensation, say, "Consider
committing overts against _____." This should turn on a Rock Slam if it
isn't on already whenever the Item was said or Tiger Drilled. This is
called a Reliable Item if it Rock Slammed. The Rock Slam is very touchy
sometimes and has to be Tiger Drilled back on. If an Item slammed while
being nulled it is probably it. Those that RS while being listed do not
have to RS flicker at all while being nulled, and usually don't.
8. If the Reliable Item found turned on Pain, list "Who or what
would_____(the Reliable Item) oppose?" If it turned on Sensation, list
"Who or what would oppose_____(the Reliable Item)?" Complete the list
as in any listing. Don't stop just because the pc nattered or wept. Get
the Mid Ruds in and get a list which gives no dirty needle (not dirty
reads, there's a difference) while nulling. In case of a Coterm, test
to see if there's more Pn than Sen or Sen than Pn and classify
accordingly. If you can't decide, list both as opposed and oppose and
nul as one list.
9. Nul the list saying each Item once, down to 3 or 4 Items.
10. Tiger Drill the last 3 or 4 that were left in. Select the last one
left in.
11. Test and turn on the Rock Slam on the last one in (as in Step 7
above). Be sure to properly determine which is Term and which is
Oppterm.
Get pc to examine and align the package for correctness (and any
Bonus Package) and put on the pc's Line Plot.
12. Go over the list used in Step 1 to see if there are any more dirty
reads or traces of reads on the Scientology List. If so, repeat the
above Eleven Steps on the pc. If not, make a list for the Step 1A etc,
using questions given further on in this HCO Bulletin. Note: Only the
Scientology List is tested again. Other lists for Step I are used only
once.
----------------
This is the only action known in auditing which will undercut the bank
of a slow moving or non-gain pc. Every such pc is a Rock Slammer.
Why is this? Well, these two Items (a terminal and oppterm of the GPM)
make a Present Time Problem. The pc is obsessively trying to solve this
problem, not trying to get well or go clear. The pc won't come off trying
to solve this sub-surface problem. He or she doesn't even "know" about it.
So there's the Auditor trying to make somebody well, but the pc is trying
to die "to prove Scientology doesn't work" or to get sick "to make my boss
realize what he's done to me", etc, etc.
It's pathetic. In the largest percentage of cases, the auditor is
opening the door to the next two hundred trillion years and the pc is
reactively trying to get even with grasshoppers.
This disagreement between auditor and pc brings about the upsets and no
gains.
No other technique known will get at this key problem or problems.
This technique doesn't try to diagnose the problem. Indeed the problem
won't be known to the pc (or the auditor) until the action is complete. And
then the auditor doesn't even have to ask for it or about it.
----------------
What do you do with these two Items? Well, this will prove to be the
third biggest source of falls from grace in using Routine 2-12. You don't
do anything with the Items except establish which is the terminal and which
is the oppterm and put them on the pc's Line Plot. The thing that could be
done with them would be to get "Represent Lists" from them to find more
Items. You can ask for missed W/Hs, saying, "When did
(oppterm found) nearly find out about you?" But it's best to leave the
RS on for a goal finder as the goal finder will want to use them in 3GAXX.
(Step 4A-Routine 3-21.) So don't spoil the RS. The pc will cognite all over
the place and that's the benefit, and the pc won't be trying to chop up
auditors and orgs, and should respond very well to CCHs and Prepchecking
after the Two Items are found.
The biggest error that will be made is trying to do R2-12 with the
Rudiments out,
and conversely, putting the Mid Ruds in every time a pc originates (a sure
way to ruin a pc).
The second biggest source of error is making Incomplete Lists. These go
out hard and give a dirty needle and result in no Item. The unschooled
auditor will usually chicken out whenever the pc says, "That's all," or
"I've just put it on the list. That last Item is IT," at which the auditor
stops listing. And the Item that will Rock Slam is never put on the list
and so is never found. And the auditor is left fighting a dirty needle and
trying to read through it. The rule is, while nulling, if a simple question
"What did you want to say?" fails to smooth out a suddenly dirty needle the
list is incomplete. Complete it and then put in Mid Ruds. The average list
runs 80 or more Items. (Get the precise difference between a dirty needle
and a dirty read in HCO Bulletin November 8, AD 12.)
QUESTIONS FOR THE SECOND PAIR
If you have found a pair of Reliable Items and can't find anything now
on the basic list of Step One, and you want to continue Routine 2-12, the
following questions will produce lists on which Reliable Items can be
found. You ask the pc the question and write down whatever he says. You
never correct the pc or refuse an Item. You only use one of these questions
at a time for a full coverage with all 12 Steps.
LISTS
List R2-12-1. The Basic Scientology List as given in Step 1. It is
essential not to omit it as the first action in Routine 2-12. It may be
done again, and should be, after other lists are used to get Reliable
Items. (After other Items have been found, List 1 may come alive again as
pc's case unburdens.)
List R2-12-1A. Special List for pc's environment. General Question, "In
present time, who or what have you been upset about?" This, whatever the
question, must get things like wife, husband, marriage, job, home, myself,
my case, police, this country, machines, etc, etc. It is an effort to
locate PT Items that keep the GPM keyed in. Use only after List 1. Pc gives
the Items for this List.
List R2-12-1B. General Question, "Who or what would you prefer not to
associate with?" Listed from pc. This list heading was developed for pcs
who won't say they have enemies. It can be used on any pc. Use only what pc
lists. Be sure list is complete.
List R2-12-1C. General Question, "Who or what have you detested?" Use
only what the pc gives. Be sure list is complete.
List R2-12-1D. General Question, "Who or what isn't part of existence?"
Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.
List R2-12-1E. (General Question, "What Problem have you had?" Use only
what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.
List R2-12-1F. General Question, "Who or what have you had to be
careful of?" Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.
List R2-12-1G. General Question, "Who or what have you invalidated?"
Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.
List R2-12-1H. General Question, "Who or what has nearly found out
about you?" Use only what pc gives. Be very very very sure that list is
complete or you'll have missed a withhold on the pc.
The above lists are numbered and lettered for proper sequence in use on
the preclear.
In other words you could do Routine 2-12 many times (plus doing Step 1
on the Scientology List more than once) on a preclear. But always do the
first step with Scientology Items as many times as you can get one of its
Items to react and you'll never miss.
It is this first list of Scientology Items which holds up cases, so it
must be used for all 12 steps again and again.
Further questions can be had from Prehav assessments.
The rule is: "If you get a Reliable Item always get its opposing item."
Then you will never get a BY-PASSED ITEM, the thing that hangs up cases.
In getting any Reliable Items and their opposition, you are of course
cleaning up the GPM and therefore clearing the pc. So this is a road to
clear.
Items have many other uses, so never fake one and never fail to record
one on the Line Plot.
----------------
Occasionally you get a BONUS PACKAGE off one list. In addition to the
Item you are looking for, sometimes two RSing Items will show up on the
same list opposing each other and blow. They oppose each other, not what
you're listing. Point this out to the pc when found and put these also on
the Line Plot, marked BP (Bonus Package), one as a terminal and one as an
opposition terminal. And go on and find your regular Item.
----------------
Routine 2-12, coupled with Problems Intensives and CCHs, gives the
HCA/HPA a full kit that can handle the worst cases, knock out the no-gain
cases and can clear. So I haven't forgotten the HCA/HPA.
-----------------
Don't try to cover up the fact that somebody has a Rock Slam or a Dirty
Read on Scientology etc. You'll have set him or her up to never have gains.
SKILLS REQUIRED
To accomplish a 3GAXX for Rock Slammers, an auditor needs to be drilled
and thoroughly examined on the following:
1. The E-Meter and what is a Dirty Read, a Dirty Needle and a Rock Slam.
Practical.
2. HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12, "Somatics". Theory.
3. Any future HCO Bulletins on Assessment for Rock Slamming Items.
Theory and Practical.
4. Tiger Drilling. Theory and Practical.
5. This bulletin. Theory and Practical.
If the auditor can't do 3GAXX for Rock Slammers, it will be because he
did not know or was badly examined on the five things above. There's
neither difficulty nor mystery about the above 12 steps.
So study up and don't miss. This, but no Routine 3 process, is declared
an HPA/HCA skill. If an auditor can't do it, he'll have a slow go or a no-
win on about eighty per cent of all cases.
With the above, properly studied and well drilled, there will be great
success on anybody who can be persuaded to begin a session.
And also this must be done on every case that hasn't gone clear already
even after their goal has been found. It's a certainty that such a case is
by-passing at least one side of a Present Time Problem that is part of and
suppressing the whole GPM.
This is THE PC's BIGGEST MISSED WITHHOLD of all.
Note: There are no variations on the order of steps or actions above.
One doesn't sometimes do this, sometimes that. This is a very rote
procedure.
Note: On some very, very rough cases this system may not work fully
until some regular 3GAXX is run by a Class IV auditor. In any event, a case
on 3GAXX should be tested again as above after every 6 or 8 RIs are found.
Note: And just to clear up any possible misunderstanding you do R2-12
on all pcs first and you never vary its steps or sequence.
Note: No preclear will achieve a lasting case gain with overts on
Scientology and allied Items. No free needle will stay free in the presence
of these overts. Routine 2-12 removes the unwanted valences that commit
such overts rather than endlessly sec checking the pc. The most insidious
By-Passed Items are those that remain in present time prompting the pc to
commit senseless overts to the dismay of his good sense and the peril of
his case condition. He will make no fast gain until the Scientology List is
worked over and over for any reaction.
FAST STEP RESUME
1. USE OR COMPILE A LIST 1, 1 A, 1 B, etc.
2. ASSESS LIST.
3. TIGER DRILL THE LAST 3 OR 4 ITEMS LEFT IN. TAKE THE ONE WITH LARGEST
OR ANY REMAINING ACTION. IF ITEM FOUND IS AN RI OMIT STEPS 4 AND 5.
4. USING ITEM IN 3, LIST "WHO OR WHAT DOES_____REPRESENT TO YOU?"
5. NUL LIST.
6. TIGER DRILL LAST 3 OR 4 ITEMS LEFT IN, SELECT ONE.
7. DETERMINE IF ITEM FOUND IS A TERMINAL OR OPPOSITION TERMINAL.
8. LIST FROM ITEM USING PROPER WORDING FOR A TERMINAL OR OPPOSITION
TERMINAL AS ESTABLISHED IN 7. TERM = PAIN = W/W WOULD_____OPPOSE?
OPPTERM = SEN = W/W WOULD OPPOSE _____ ?
9. NUL LIST.
10. TIGER DRILL LAST 3 OR 4. SELECT LAST ONE LEFT IN.
11. TEST PACKAGE (AND ANY BONUS PACKAGE) WITH PC, MAKE SURE WHICH IS TERM
AND OPPTERM AND IF THEY OPPOSE EACH OTHER AND PUT ON LINE PLOT.
12. DO ALL ABOVE STEPS AGAIN ON SCIENTOLOGY LIST UNTIL IT HAS NO GHOST OF
A REACTION. THEN DO 1A, 1B, ETC, EACH ON ALL STEPS.
Note: This is a primary training skill. Do not give students more than
instruction on the check sheet of Class IIb before turning them loose on
Routine IIb as a heavy time auditing activity. They will learn little or
nothing before being clean on R2-12. Put Comm Course and other instruction
after R2-12 and the student will have a chance to learn it. Give the
student further heavy instruction on R2-12 toward course end. Classify only
on the end of course repass of the IIb check sheet. The point is don't
waste instruction on basic Scientology until the student is cleaned up on
Routine 2-12, particularly the Scientology List. I don't care how this is
accomplished in the Academy or in the HGC. Just get it done.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright �1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE-ISSUE ONE
THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST
This is the List One of Routine 2-12. You can lengthen but do not
shorten this list for Step 1 of R2-12. This list is used over and over on
all 12 Steps until no reaction of any kind can be gotten off of it. If an
Item on it reads sporadically, even, use it on the 12 Steps.
The Scientology List is called LIST ONE. Others, 1A, 1B, are called by
their designations. All lists, including the Scientology List, are referred
to in general as "A first list", or "The first list".
______________________________ _________________________________
PC NAME DATE
______________________________ ________________________________
AUDITOR LOCATION (CITY)
SCIENTOLOGY A DIANETIC ORGANIZATION
SCIENTOLOGISTS ORG SURVIVAL
AN AUDITOR A CENTRE
AUDITORS FIELD AUDITORS
STUDENTS HCA'S
AN E-METER D. SCN'S
METERS HGC PCS
A SESSION ACC'S
CLEARING MENTAL SCIENCE
A CLEAR A SCIENCE OF MIND
A RELEASE MENTAL DOCTORS
A PRECLEAR SAINT HILL
A PATIENT COURSES
INSANITY STATEMENTS
THE MIND UNITS
MINDS SCIENTOLOGY PAY
MENTAL HEALTH WORLD CLEARING
DIANETICS RON
BOOK ONE L. RON HUBBARD
DIANETIC BOOKS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS THE GOVERNING DIRECTOR
A SCIENTOLOGY MAGAZINE THE FOUNDER
RON'S ARTICLES MARY SUE
A SCIENTOLOGY CONGRESS MARY SUE HUBBARD
A BULLETIN THE ASSOCIATION SECRETARY
A POLICY LETTER THE ORGANIZATION SECRETARY
A HAT THE HCO SECRETARY
HATS SECURITY
A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION WITHHOLDS FROM SCIENTOLOGY
STAFF MEMBERS OVERTS AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY
A REGISTRAR YOUR CASE
SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS PEOPLE'S CASES
INSTRUCTORS TECHNIQUES
STAFF AUDITORS PROCEDURES
THE D OF P A SQUIRREL
THE D OF T PSYCHOLOGISTS
HCO PSYCHIATRISTS
HASI HUMAN RIGHTS
THE CHURCH ENTHETA
THE FOUNDATION RUMOURS
THE CENTRAL ORG BAD AUDITORS
THE ACADEMY BAD AUDITING
THE HGC SECURITY RISKS
HDRF ROCK SLAMMERS
THE CO-AUDIT NO RESULTS
CO-AUDITING
____________________________________
______________________________________
A bad Person in Scientology The worst Auditor pc had
____________________________________
______________________________________
A bad Person in Scientology A Scientology Exec
____________________________________
______________________________________
A bad Person in Scientology A Scientology Exec
____________________________________
______________________________________
Auditor's formal name A Prominent Scientologist
____________________________________
______________________________________
Auditor's informal name Something in Scientology worrying pc
____________________________________
______________________________________
An Auditor pc had Something in Scientology worrying pc
____________________________________
______________________________________
The first Auditor pc had Something in Scientology worrying pc
____________________________________
The best Auditor pc had
Note: Fill in all blanks with pc's help.
Note: The above when found can be Terms or Oppterms. It doesn't matter
which. All that matters is meter reaction unless an RI is found on this
list. If so Identify for Term or Oppterm as in Step 7 and continue R2-12.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:gl.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
27 November 1962
** 6211C27 SHSBC-218 Routine 2-12
** 6211C27 SHSBC-219 Routine 2-12
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 NOVEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Academies
R2-12
PRACTICAL DRILLS
The following drills were prepared by Brian Pope, Practical Supervisor
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. These drills may be used in any Academy
or Course.
R2- 12
TRAINING DRILL
To teach a student to audit with 2-12 he must have certain basic
auditing skills. These are:
G.F. Model Session.
Getting in Mid Ruds.
Anti Q&A & TR4.
Missed Withholds detection and cleaning.
Completing a list. Tiger Drill.
Nulling a list.
Meter reading.
When an auditor has these skills he is capable of running 2-12 and can
produce results without exception.
----------------
The Coach has the student use the 12 steps of 2-12 in Model Session.
His purpose is to give the student a reality on the mechanics of what he is
doing and coach him to be able to stick to the rote procedure without
variation. The coach uses the HCO Bulletin November 23 step by step giving
the student on a gradient scale anything he is likely to have to handle
during R2-12.
Student uses a dummy meter and coach uses a pen as a needle during
listing and nulling Items.
Drills
1. The coach has student assess List 1 calling off each Item one at a
time and makes sure that the student can null this list using a
standard marking system and marking in any meter or pc phenomena which
may be of value to him, i.e., Rock Slams, Pn or Sen, Dirty Reads, etc.
2. Coach has student drilled in Tiger Drilling the last 3-4 Items in as
per "Tiger" (HCO Bulletin August 1, 1962).
3. Coach shows student various things that could happen on a List One
assessment. E.g. 2 Rock Slamming Items stay in, 1 RS Item stays in,
Sporadic Item stays in, nothing stays in, and teaches student what to
do with the Item he is left with (Step 3 of 2-12).
4. Coach shows student how to get a represent list from a reading Item
(Step 4, 2-12) coaching him on marking his list with any useful data
that shows up during listing or nulling. Coach gives student reality on
dirty needles and incomplete lists by "turning on" dirty needles during
nulling, also gives student reality on out
rudiments during nulling causing Items to stay in-3 Items in a row
stay in shows a Mid Rud out somewhere-coach has student have a complete
list before nulling.
5. Coach has student null the list by saying each Item once until only 3
or 4 react.
6. Coach has student TD last few Items as in Step 2 to a Reliable-or 2
Reliable Items.
7. Coach has student do Step 7 of 2-12 practising all he has learned
regarding needle behaviour and coaches student to recognise a term or
an oppterm (HCO Bulletin November 8, 1962).
8. Coach has student complete the Steps 8-12 of R2-12 having him handle
anything which may come up during a session and find a package or
recognise a blown Item.
Instructor passes student when he can run the whole 2-12 steps and find
a "package" on Instructor without any variation from procedure.
Coach uses HCO Bulletin on 2-12 throughout as his reference for
coaching.
COACHING NOTES
Coach should look for:
1. Poor marking system in nulling.
2. Incomplete lists.
3. Too many Mid Ruds.
4. Failure to get in Mid Ruds.
5. Failure to add Items to list.
6. Poor Tiger Drilling (Tiger Drill is a dust-off not a full-scale
cleaning up job like a prepcheck).
7. Student failure to note RS Items during listing or nulling also
failure to note any Pn or Sen pc originates.
8. Poor R factor-not keeping pc informed.
9. Failure to recognise a blown Item or package.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
29 November 1962
** 6211C29 SHSBC-220 R2-12 Theory and Practice, Part I
** 6211C29 SHSBC-221 R2-12 Theory and Practice, Part II
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 NOVEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE-ISSUE TWO
THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST
This is List One Issue Two. Do not add to it or change it. This list is
used over and over on all 12 Steps until no reaction of any kind can be
gotten off of it. If an Item on it reads sporadically, even, use it on the
12 Steps.
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________
PC'S NAME AUDITOR'S NAME DATE
SCIENTOLOGY THE DYNAMICS
SCIENTOLOGISTS THE REACTIVE MIND
AN AUDITOR PAST LIVES
AUDITORS A CENTRE
AUDITING FIELD AUDITORS
STUDENTS CERTIFICATES
AN E-METER HCAs
METERS HPAs
A SESSION DSCNs
CLEARING HGC PCs
A CLEAR ACCs
A RELEASE MENTAL SCIENCE
A PRECLEAR A SCIENCE OF MIND
A PATIENT MENTAL DOCTORS
INSANITY SAINT HILL
THE MIND COURSES
MINDS STATEMENTS
MENTAL HEALTH UNITS
DIANETICS SCIENTOLOGY PAY
BOOK ONE WORLD CLEARING
DIANETIC BOOKS RON
SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS L. RON HUBBARD
A SCIENTOLOGY MAGAZINE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RON'S ARTICLES THE GOVERNING DIRECTOR
A SCIENTOLOGY CONGRESS THE FOUNDER
A BULLETIN MARY SUE
A POLICY LETTER MARY SUE HUBBARD
A HAT THE ASSOCIATION SECRETARY
HATS THE ORGANIZATION SECRETARY
A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION THE HCO SECRETARY
STAFF MEMBERS SECURITY
A REGISTRAR YOUR CASE
SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS PEOPLE'S CASES
INSTRUCTORS TECHNIQUES
STAFF AUDITORS PROCEDURES
THE D OF P A SQUIRREL
THE D OF T PSYCHOLOGISTS
HCO PSYCHIATRISTS
HASI AUDITORS
THE CHURCH AUDITING
THE FOUNDATION ROCK SLAMMERS
THE CENTRAL ORG THETANS
THE ACADEMY
THE HGC
HDRF
THE CO-AUDIT
CO-AUDITING
A DIANETIC ORGANIZATION
Auditor's Name_______________
LRH :jw.bh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED L. RON HUBBARD
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 NOVEMBER AD12
Reissued to Franchise 12 February 1963
Sthil Students
CenOCon
Franchise
ROUTINES 2-12, 3-21 and 3GAXX
TIGER DRILL
for
NULLING BY MID RUDS
(Replaces HCO Bulletin 1 August AD12)
(Note: In an actual session, in addition to Model Session script, only the
words below are used. No additive words or departures are necessary except
to clean up a constant dirty needle with session Mid Ruds if that
misfortune occurs. And use session Mid Ruds only when you can't go on
otherwise.)
DRILL ON NEW NULLING PROCEDURES
Position for this drill is the usual auditor-coach position. The coach
only has the drill form and follows it exactly until the student auditor
has each example down perfectly. When the student auditor and the coach
have these drills down exactly, then the coach can give different reads and
different goals for the student auditor to work on, the only caution being
that the goals selected be those which would be most unlikely on anyone's
goals list. The goal used in this drill is: TO BE A TIGER. On the drills
below "A" is for auditor; "C" is for coach. Student and coach use only the
words in the drill except when student em at which coach says, "Flunk!" and
"Start," at which student starts at the beginning.
Use of Tiger Drill: This drill is used in Routine 2-12 to sort out the
last 3 or 4 Items left in on each nulling. It is used in Routine 3-21 to
null the Goals list and on the last 3 or 4 Items left in. In 3GAXX it is
used on the last 3 or 4 Items left in and on any Goals list. This is the
Small Tiger Drill. It is however simply called the Tiger Drill. Big Tiger
is always called Big Tiger.
Buttons used: Only the following buttons are used in Small Tiger:
Suppressed, Invalidated, Suggested, Failed to reveal and Mistake.
Big Tiger is the same drill except that it additionally uses Nearly
found out, Protest, Anxious about and Careful of. One shifts to Big Tiger
when making sure of the last Item in on the list or a goal that fires
strongly.
Tiger and Big Tiger compare in buttons used to Mid Ruds and Big Mid
Ruds.
Drill 1:
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 2:
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 3:
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 4.
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 5:
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there
anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 6:
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On the goal to be a tiger is there anything you have failed to
reveal?
C: Null
A: On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has any
mistake been made?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 7:
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: On the goal to be a tiger has any mistake been made?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has any
mistake been made?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 8:
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: To be a tiger
C: Read (Note that this goal is now ready to be checked out.)
Drill 9:
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suggested?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there
anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Drill 10:
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything
been suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.
Acks-These are used to complete and end a whole Drill Cycle. They can be
used during the Drill if pc needs them, but only if pc needs them. It's
better to use the Drill as is.
Suppress-Suppress is not used repetitively in Tiger Drilling, only in Mid
Ruds and Prepchecking.
"Do you agree that that is clean"-This is not used.
"I will check that on the meter"-This is not used.
After doing Suppress always check the Goal.
If the pc has a tendency to lose sight of the goal on a long run you can
always change, for a command, the wording to "On the goal To be a tiger has
anything been_______ ?
LRH :jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright �1962, 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 DECEMBER 1962
CenOCon
GOALS & PREPCHECKING
In Prepchecking pcs through Problems Intensives, it commonly occurs
that the pc presents his or her goal to the Auditor.
When this occurs the goal should not be given vast importance or
suppressed, either way.
The pc should be taken to a Class IV Auditor and checked out. The
Prepcheck may then be shifted to the goal itself.
The usual actions of Routine 3-21 are then followed, of which the goals
prepcheck is a part, so long as the auditing is done under the supervision
of a Class IV Auditor.
It is a very bad action to just take the pc's goal and run it without
its being thoroughly checked out. The health and even the life of the pc
can be put at risk if it is not the pc's goal.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd jh
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 DECEMBER AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE-ISSUE THREE
THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST
Do not add to list or you will get incomplete list phenomena.
_____________________ _____________________ ____________________
PC'S NAME AUDITOR'S NAME DATE
SCIENTOLOGY SOMATICS
SCIENTOLOGISTS PAIN
AN AUDITOR ENGRAMS
AUDITORS CIRCUITS
AUDITING VALENCES
STUDENTS THE DYNAMICS
AN E-METER PAST LIVES
METERS A CENTRE
A SESSION FIELD AUDITORS
CLEARING CERTIFICATES
A CLEAR HCAs
A RELEASE HPAs
A PRECLEAR D.SCNs
A PATIENT MINISTERS
INSANE PEOPLE HGC PCs
THE MIND ACC s
MINDS MENTAL SCIENCE
MENTAL HEALTH A SCIENCE OF MIND
DIANETICS MENTAL DOCTORS
BOOK ONE SAINT HILL
DIANETIC BOOKS COURSES
SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS STATEMENTS
A SCIENTOLOGY MAGAZINE UNITS
RON'S ARTICLES SCIENTOLOGY PAY
A SCIENTOLOGY CONGRESS WORLD CLEARING
A BULLETIN RON
A POLICY LETTER L. RON HUBBARD
A HAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
HATS THE GOVERNING DIRECTOR
A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION THE FOUNDER
STAFF MEMBERS MARY SUE
A REGISTRAR MARY SUE HUBBARD
SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS THE ASSOCIATION SECRETARY
INSTRUCTORS THE ORGANIZATION SECRETARY
STAFF AUDITORS THE HCO SECRETARY
THE D of P SECURITY
THE D of T YOUR CASE
HCO PEOPLE'S CASES
HASI TECHNIQUES
THE CHURCH PROCEDURES
THE FOUNDATION ROUTINE 2-12
THE CENTRAL ORG A SQUIRREL
THE ACADEMY PSYCHOLOGISTS
THE HGC PSYCHIATRISTS
THE PE ROCK SLAMMERS
HDRF THETANS
THE CO-AUDIT TESTS
CO-AUDITING EXAMINERS
A DIANETIC ORGANIZATION GOALS
THE DYNAMICS TAPES
THE REACTIVE MIND LECTURES
ABERRATION
_________________________
Auditor's Name
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1962 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Added to by HCO B 9 December 1962.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 DECEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise
2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21
AND
ROUTINE 2-10
MODERN ASSESSMENT
The only actual test of a list is "Is it nullable?" Can it be nulled?
Or will a dirty needle take over?
Assessment is prevented by the following:
(1) List taken from erroneous source.
(most corny)
(2) List is incomplete.
(most common)
(3) Missed missed withholds.
(least common)
(4) List Mid Ruds out.
(most overworked)
(5) Session Mid Ruds out.
(most neglected)
----------------
DEFINITIONS
ASSESSMENT-The whole action of obtaining a significant Item from a pc.
LISTING-The auditor's action in writing down Items said by the pc in
response to a question by the auditor.
NULLING-The auditor's action in saying Items from a List to a pc and noting
the reaction of the pc by use of an E-Meter.
ROCKSLAMMER-One who produces a Rockslam during the nulling of the
Scientology List on that list. Persons who produce Rockslam reactions on
other lists are not Rockslammers. This is designated because a certain
behaviour pattern can be expected of a Rockslammer and because this person,
having a PTP from the GPM on Scientology or allied Items, especially will
make no gain in other auditing or studying of any kind until that Item is
properly opposed by R2-10 or R2-12 and the case further cleaned on 2-10 or
2-12. 3GAXX and R3-21 are no help to this case. Without 2-12 this case is
condemned to the next two hundred trillion years in misery. So never miss
in spotting a Rockslammer.
NULLABLE-The condition a list must be in in order to have an Item found on
it.
A DEAD HORSE-A list which even with good auditing, failed for any other
reason to produce a Reliable Item.
SKUNKED-A list with RSs on it in listing that failed to produce a Reliable
Item.
WRITING THE LIST
The list is written on 8" x 13" or 8l/2'' x 13l/2'' paper, on two sides
of the paper, in one or two columns, depending on size of the writing. A
fold of four pages is sometimes used, 8" x 13".
The pc's name in brief, the date and page number of the list and the
question being asked are put on every sheet on the first side of that sheet
or on the first page of a set of four pages unseparated.
The question is repeated only as often as actually needed by the pc.
Items are softly acknowledged now and then, not each Item.
All Items are written down that the pc gives.
The list is done with pc on the meter at sensitivity 8. The auditor
keeps an eye on the meter. As the pc first thinks of an Item, the Item RSs
or gives a DR. The auditor marks "RS" or "DR" after each such Item.
The auditor must be alert for a pc saying, "That's the Item. Now the
list is complete." Invariably the RSing Items lie just after such a
statement. Such a statement is acknowledged well and the auditor says,
"We'll have to continue just to be sure I have a clean needle."
The list is complete when the needle is clean and flowing (but this
won't happen with the Session Mid Ruds out).
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 or it will
foul up the needle on nulling.
The danger sign of overlisting (there are three but this is the only
one used in 2-12 and 3GAXX) is the pc invalidating or questioning Items as
he or she says them. When this happens near the beginning of a list, it
indicates a wrong source for the list. After a hundred Items or more it
means that the list is as complete as it will ever be and the auditor
should stop and try to null it.
If a first step 2-12 list produces no RSs one completes it anyway and
uses it. In short, first step lists don't have to RS. However, a first step
list that does RS is far more likely to produce results.
If a step 4 2-12 list produces no RS after being stretched on and on it
is definitely a dead horse and should be abandoned. An RS usually occurs
before 50 Items on a live list but this is a guess and some RSs have not
turned on before 100 Items or more were listed.
In short, Represent and Opposition lists must produce an RS somewhere
or they will not give a Reliable Item. These should be abandoned without
nulling.
If an Item is an RSing Item it should only be opposed, represented (in
3GAXX) only after being opposed. Representing an RSing Item rather than
opposing it will fail, as in representing an RSing Item the Reliable Item
for the list is, of course, the Item the auditor already has.
The commonest flub is to fail to get in the Session Mid Ruds before
writing or nulling a list and thereby getting a clean needle. Auditors who
fail are auditors who won't clean up a dirty needle before nulling. A
needle can be dirty before and during the writing of a list without harming
anything. But the needle must be clean or cleaned up when the completion
test (d) below is given.
The commonest source of a dirty needle is out list Mid Ruds, but a new case
with no Items found may have a dirty needle until a good live list is
listed out to complete. Then magically the DN vanishes.
Various shifts, all common to auditing, may have to be employed to
clean up a needle for the first assessment. But if it is too hard, just do
a Zero One 2-12 List and use it before the Scientology List and the needle
will usually clean, especially when the first Reliable Item is found.
--------------
Don't try to bat a perfect score of one list = an RI. An auditor often
has dead horses. But when the average rises above 50% dead horse there is
something wrong with the auditing. Excellent auditing gives less than 20%
dead horses.
--------------
Because an Item RSs when given in writing the list is no reason it will
RS when nulling even with the Mid Ruds in. One RSing Item on a list will
impart its RS to a dozen Items during the listing step.
--------------
Don't harass the pc about a dirty needle. It's the auditor who dirtied
it up with wrong sources for lists or incomplete lists or cleaning clean
reads.
--------------
If when getting the Rudiments in, an RS is noted, take no different
action. RSs seen in the Ruds merely mean the pc is hot on a PTP that goes
hard into the GPM and nothing but 2-12 will relieve it permanently. Other
measures such as O/W turn it off for the moment but never permanently; only
2-12 can do that. Don't run 3-21 on a pc who RSs in the Ruds. Only 2-12 or
2-10.
--------------
Never say "Floor. Floor. Floor," to turn off an RS or DN or DR. You
don't care if things RS and a DN is cured only with Session and/or List Mid
Ruds.
--------------
It is fatal to fail to oppose an RSing Item found on List One or a
first list of 2-12. If a Rockslammer test disclosed an RS on the
Scientology List on Tuesday and another auditor on Wednesday just does a
new List One Assessment and ignores the RS test result and doesn't oppose
the List One RI, the case may breed dead horses thereafter. Use RSing Items
when known or when found for opposition lists.
--------------
How wide is an RS? This is a silly question as an RS is a repetitive
slashing of the needle of any width. A DR is a different looking read, tiny
in its strokes. One or two slashes make an RS. There isn't such a thing as
an incipient RS. If it slashed up or down once call it an RS. A Rocket Read
looks entirely different in velocity and decay.
--------------
A common source of trouble in finding a Reliable Item is missing an in
Item that is marked in and not re-nulling it. The auditor misses the slant
/ .
Each page of a list is examined carefully for all Items X before being
abandoned. It is then marked with a big X in the upper left corner, meaning
"all nulled". This saves an inspection of it again in going over the list.
NULLING
When a list is said to be complete by the preclear (does not apply to
Scientology List) the auditor
(a) Gets in Session Big Mid Ruds.
(b) Gets in the List Big Mid Ruds.
(c) MAKES SURE THE NEEDLE IS CLEAN BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ELSE THAN
(a) and (b).
(d) Says the question of the list and sees if it reacts on the
meter or upsets needle flow.
(e) If meter reacts auditor completes list and does test of
question as in (d) again until either the needle is smooth (c) or
dirty. If dirty and won't clean by listing, does Session Mid Ruds
(a) and List Mid Ruds (b) and checks needle (c).
(Until the (a) to (e) steps have been gone through carefully the
auditor hasn't a prayer of nulling a list properly.)
(A pc can become harassed by an auditor trying to smooth a smooth
needle with unnecessary Mid Ruds.)
The auditor now starts to null the list by the following steps:
(f) Calls each Item on the list one time (or more times if read was
missed by auditor the first time). (No committing Overts against,
etc, is now used. Only the Item itself.)
(g) Marks each Item that goes out with an X .
(h) Marks each Item that stays in with a / .
(i) If three or four Items stay in in a row, the auditor concludes
that an Item earlier on the list has been invalidated and politely
turns the list so the pc can see it and, indicating the already
passed over Items, says, "Which one of these might you have had
thoughts on?" The pc looks at list and answers. The auditor simply
acknowledges politely and goes on nulling. He does not re-state the
"falsely in" (/) Items.
(j) Every ten or so Items that go out consecutively (X) the auditor
asks for a possible suppress, "On this list has anything been
suppressed?" If it reacts on meter it is cleaned up and the auditor
draws a line down the side of the (X) Items from moment of the
suppress to where he now is as a group to null them again next
time. The auditor does not re-null them until the next time around.
(k) At the end of the first time through the auditor gets in the
List Mid Ruds until the needle is clean and flowing. It may
sometimes be necessary to get the Session Mid Ruds in to accomplish
a fully clean needle.
(l) The auditor starts down the list again, calling off each Item
left in (/) one time (or until he sees the reaction or lack of it).
(m) Items now out are marked X and Items that are still in are
marked / . Don't forget the X groups that were marked suppressed.
(n) When the auditor has gone through the list a second time the
List Big Mid Ruds are put in swiftly.
(o) Do steps (1), (m) and (n) until the list is down to 3 or 4
Items.
(p) Briefly Tiger Drill the remaining Items. Take the one that RSs
as an RI.
(q) If no Item now RSs and none can now be made to RS get in the
Session Big Mid Ruds and do (p) again.
(r) If no RS results, take the Items still reacting and ask the
pc's opinion (packaging step of 2-12).
Don't oppose an Item that did not RS when found. Don't endlessly Tiger
Drill an Item until it dies. Don't fail to oppose an Item that RSs.
LIST APPEARANCES
A nulled list does not look like this (this is the result of Incomplete
Lists or out ruds or improper source):
Tiger///////////X
Waterbuck // X
Wind//////////////X
Willow wand///////////////////
Catfish/////X///X/////X
Game Warden///////////X
A nulled list also does not look like this:
Tiger
Waterbuck
Wind /
Willow wand //
Catfish
Game Warden
This is how a rightly nulled list should look:
Tiger DRX
Waterbuck X
Wind RSX
Willow wand RSpn/RS/RS/RS
Catfish X
Game Warden sen/X
If a pc's List Mid Ruds (On this list has anything________) go out and
if pc Inspection Step (i) above is not done, this is what happens:
[pic]
If a pc suppresses an Item or something else this is what happens:
[pic]
This is the way the list just above is marked when the suppress factor
is found on check as in Step (j) above:
[pic]
---------------
ASSESSMENTS
Assessment by greatest Reaction is the earliest method of Assessment.
It still works but is used now only to decide on last two or three Items
that were Tiger Drilled. It is not terribly inaccurate but is no tool for a
really skilled auditor as RSs transfer about on some lists.
Assessment by Elimination depends wholly on the right Item being
charged enough to peer through the out rudiments. One just goes over and
over the list marking things in or out as above until one stays in. This is
crude but it works. It is no tool for a trained auditor.
ROUTINE 2-10
(R2-12 Short Form for Beginners)
The Short Form of R2-12 can be used by untrained auditors with some
effect until they are trained in Mid Ruds and other niceties.
Do not use Model Session or Goal Finder's Model Session. Just use
"Start of Session" and "End of Session". No Ruds, havingness or other
actions.
Step One: Assess first lists by Elimination above, taking whatever
survives and reads. If an RS is found oppose it at once. Except for
Scientology List, list a standard first list question to get this first
list. Label paper as in Step Six below. Be sure to list until needle looks
smooth or pc has really run out.
Step Two: Using the Item found in Step One above, list a "Who or What
does ______ (Item found) represent to you?" list, marking "RS" all Items
that RSed before being said by pc or when said by pc. List until needle
looks very smooth.
Step Three: Null list by RS. Neglect everything that didn't RS when
said to pc. Go over Items that RSed again until only one does.
Read all Items to pc. Don't mark Items that don't RS with an X as the list
actually hasn't been nulled.
Step Four: Circle Item or Items that still RSed on Nulling on the list.
(Get it checked out by the Instructor if one is present.) Choose whatever
continues to RS now and then when said.
Step Five: Establish if Item made pc sick or dizzy (sen) or hurt or hot
or cold (pn)
Step Six: If Item in Five above was sen, list question is "Who or What
would oppose_____(Item found)?" If Item was pn, list question becomes "Who
or What would a_____(Item found) oppose?" Write proper question and pc's
name, date and page number at the top of each sheet.
Step Seven: List the question in Six until needle looks clean and isn't
Ticking or kicking as pc thinks of Items. Get the list complete. Be sure
that every Item that RSed when pc thought of it or said it was marked "RS"
after it.
Step Eight: Read list Items once each to pc and note any Item that RSs
when said to the pc. Go over RSing Items again.
Step Nine: Circle the Item or Items that still RS. (Get it checked out
by Instructor if one is present.)
Step Ten: Find out with pc's help which opposes which in the Items
found, or if anything opposed anything, and mark them on pc's Line Plot.
Repeat all steps using same first list until it is clean on Step One
and then obtain a new first list from another question.
The above Routine is far less reliable than 2-12 but if a student or
auditor does not know Model Session, Mid Ruds or Tiger Drilling, it will be
less upsetting to the pc and get more done. Of course RSing Items will get
lost by suppression but probably can be refound if the student just keeps
working at it. A rather difficult ("never" RSing case) will get minimal
gain on R2-10. There really are no "never" RSing cases except for a
horribly inept auditor.
The percentage of dead horses with 2-10 will be found much greater than
with R2-12. But 2-10 does work somewhat.
R2-10 can be used by new students, old auditors who are not recently
trained and in Clearing Co-audits under Instructors, but should not be used
by trained auditors. These should use R2-12. Others should use 2-10 only
until they can be trained in 2-12,
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.jh.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[The above HCO B incorporates HCO B 8 December 1962, Corrections-HCO
Bulletin of December 5, AD12, and HCO B 17 December 1962, Correction to HCO
Bulletin of December 5, 1962, which simply corrected errors in the writing,
typing and proofreading of the original mimeo issue.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 DECEMBER AD12
CenOCon
Franchise
R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX
DATA, THE ZERO A STEPS AND PURPOSE
OF PROCESSES
RULE: WHEN AN RSING ITEM IS FOUND ON LIST ONE THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST IT
MUST BE OPPOSED.
COROLLARY: WHEN AN RSING ITEM IS FOUND ON LIST ONE AND IS NOT OPPOSED
THE CASE WILL TEND THEREAFTER TO PRODUCE NO ROCKSLAMMING LISTS.
The Rule and Corollary are so much fact that if the auditor fails to
oppose an RSing Item on List One and only represents it, the case will
produce dead horses thereafter.
This is true mainly for The Scientology List. As Scientology is what is
helping the pc, having a GPM type present time problem about it will
prevent any further case gain.
On four cases now, where no RS was found on List One, The Scientology
List, although DR Items were found and represented, no RSes occurred on the
lists.
Thereafter the history of these cases was gone into, older auditor
reports were examined and it was found that in each of these cases during a
Security Check that an Item like "Scientology" or "Auditor" or "LRH" had
RSed. The case then fully suppressed it and it did not come up on a new
assessment of The Scientology List.
As soon as these Items were opposed RSes turned back on on the Lists
and all went well thereafter.
Further, the nattery nature of the pc was extreme until this was done.
So it can be concluded that a BIG 2-10 or 2-12 goof is to fail to
oppose Items that RS on List One, The Scientology List.
It is an INDICATOR that if a pc is very nattery or upset on 2-10 or 2-
12, it is probable that somebody overlooked and didn't oppose something
that RSed on List One.
It is an Indicator that if a pc is producing Dead Horses on listing,
somebody overlooked and failed to oppose an RSing Item on List One or that
the pc should be run on List Zero-One or List Zero-Two.
A common form of missing an RSing Item on a represent and being unable
to make a list nullable, is that the Item from which the represent list was
taken, being unburdened by the listing, now begins to RS and becomes the
Reliable Item.
Rule: When having difficulty getting a clean needle on a represent list
at the end of listing, and before nulling, always Tiger Drill briefly the
Item the list is coming from to see if that Item is now RSing. If it is,
don't bother to null the represent list just made. Do an oppose list on the
original Item.
Example: List One Item found-The Church. Gives a DR. A represent list is
written 200 or more Items. Meter still rough. Check The Church. It will
occasionally be found to be RSing and is therefore taken as the RI and now
should be opposed. The represent list made is abandoned.
In trying to run R2-12 on a first goal clear, use R2-10 instead and use
any tick an Item gives instead of an RS in order to oppose that Item. A
persistent tick or reaction = RS on a 1st goal clear.
ZERO LIST QUESTIONS
OR R2-12
Where a pc is producing Dead Horses on List One, there are Zero Lists
that can be used.
The procedure is this:
R2-Step 02-
Check up on the pc's record to see if an RS was ever observed on
Scientology, the orgs, auditor, LRH and if so oppose that Item at once.
R2-Step 01-Lists 0A
If a Dead Horse is produced by (1) above, then assess the following for
largest read on the meter:
List 0A0 Keep Hidden
List 0A1 Be Reasonable About
List 0A2 Rather not think about
List 0A3 Rather not know about
List 0A4 Ignore
List 0A5 Avoid
List 0A6 Stay away from
List 0A7 Not Communicate with
List 0A8 Hold off
List 0A9 Rather not have appear
List 0A10 Have to help
List 0A11 Fail to help
List 0A1 2 Dislike
List 0A13 Fight
List 0A14 Advise others to Attack
List 0A15 Attack
List 0A16 Do away with
Then use the result (largest read or RS) in the blank of the following
question:
"In present time who or what would you_____________________"
Step 1-0A:
Make your first List by asking the pc the question formed in (02).
Proceed then with the usual remaining steps of R2-12 (or R2-10).
Note: These steps do not replace the 1-A series in the original issue. The
Zero A series as given above are all prior to List One, The Scientology
List, which must be done after the Zero A series.
The Zero A series can be assessed several times for new lists.
But remember, the pc who has a hot List One (The Scientology List) will
make minimal progress on Routine 2-12.
On a pc newly on R2-12 or 2-10, if an RS was missed on List One, and
nobody can discover if this pc ever RSed on it, and List One gives two Dead
Horses in a row, fall back on the Zero A List. Then after two or three
packages are found from it, re-assess List One. The List One RS will have
been caught by the Zero A Lists or will be there on List One again.
"NEVER RSing" PCs
If a pc cannot be made to RS on Represent Lists taken from List One,
then List One was already RSing or the Zero A List must be resorted to.
There are no never RSing pcs. All pcs RS. Those that are mediumly bad
off RS very easily. Those that are way down RS less easily. Those that are
in fair shape RS well but the RS is rather moderate (less wide) and their
RS turns on every time an RSing Item is said to them. The bad off pc's RS
suppresses very easily. The mediumly bad off pc has a wide, wild frantic RS
that sometimes RSes within the RS as it slashes.
The progress of a pc can be marked by this cycle:
Horrible shape = Hard to find RS.
Mediumly bad off = Frantic wide, sporadic RSs easily suppressed.
Not too bad = Easy to find RS turns on easily on auditor's
statement of Item. Mediumly wide.
Fair shape = Easy to find, easy to turn on, doesn't suppress,
fairly narrow and regular.
Good shape = Very easy to find, very easy to turn on by command,
blows on cognition.
A pc in horrible shape goes through all these phases. Any other case on
the scale moves up.
The GPM RS is the pathway through the GPM. Any Item that RSes was part
of the GPM and has another Item in opposition to it.
Thus, you could, in theory, clear a pc by just finding Items on and on.
However, the goal sooner or later presents itself, usually in the form
of a Rocket Reading Terminal. By listing what goal that terminal may have
one gets a goals list that can be assessed. (The RR Item still must also be
opposed.)
But wrong goals are so deadly and R2-12 Items are so beneficial when
found that a Class II Auditor takes his pc's health and life in his hands
to fool about with goals. Leave that to Class IVs and go on finding Items.
ROCKET READS vs RSes
The Rocket Read is superior in value to an RS. The RS is superior in
value to a DR. A DR is superior in value to a fall.
A beginning RS is sometimes mistaken for a Rocket Read. But it won't
repeat itself. And a Rocket Read always goes to the right with a fast spurt
which rapidly decays. The slash of an RS is all of the same velocity and
doesn't decay, it just ceases.
The Rocket Read is the Read of the goal or the Rock itself.
The RS is the read of the Rock vs the Opposition Rock and every pair
above them on the cycle of the GPM. It marks the path to the Rock.
Just below the Rock lies the pc's goal.
The ROCK SLAM CHANNEL is the pathway through the pairs of Items that
compose a cycle of the GPM and lead to the Rock and goal.
The Rock Slam marks the path of Interest of the pc. RS = Interest =
Cognitions. No RS = No Cognitions.
Below the 1st Goal is a whole new undisclosed GPM. The 1st goal clears
off a cycle of the GPM. The second goal a 2nd cycle, earlier and stronger.
And so on. This is therefore the road to Theta Clear and Operating Thetan.
But the first goal is too heavily overburdened to be found easily or
run on the vast majority of cases. Therefore R2-12 is needed and 3GAXX.
PURPOSE OF PROCESSES
The target of R2-10 is fast result in the pc and greater reality for
the auditor.
The target of R2-12 is the packages in Present Time which bend the GPM
out of shape and give the pc PTPs and Hidden Standards.
The target of 3GAXX is Items on which goals lists can be compiled and
unburdening.
The target of Routine 3-21 is Clear, Theta Clear and Operating Thetan.
Second goals are easily found by R3-21 alone without Step 4A (3GAXX).
This then is the whole road from Homo Sapiens to Homo Novis to
Operating Thetan.
It requires only precision and the auditing skill now taught on the
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:gl.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
11-13 December 1962
** 6212C11 SHSBC-222 R2- 12 Data
** 6212C11 SHSBC-223 Phantom R/S
** 6212C13 SHSBC-224 R2-12 Data-Needle Behavior
** 6212C13 SHSBC-225 Repair of R2-12-Clean Needle
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 DECEMBER AD 12
Sthil Students
Academies
TRAINING
X UNIT
The biggest hole in student auditing is the inability to clean up a
needle.
Students who try to do assessments fail to get results when they
attempt to null with a needle that is already filthy.
It is rather easy to clean a needle and the results on the pc are
highly beneficial.
The basis of an inability to read a meter is state of case. This is
remedied by R2- 12's List One cleaning. When List One is burnished bright,
the student will be able to read a meter.
In V unit the auditing is heavily supervised and the student's reality
is raised by accurate R2-12 or R2-10.
In X unit therefore, the first indicated step is to teach the student
to use the Mid Ruds.
This is done by Havingness by Mid Ruds.
The pattern of the session is Goal Finder's Model Session.
The Purpose of the X unit Sessions is to clean a needle and to
demonstrate that a needle can be cleaned.
The Auditor notes the pc's can squeeze before session start.
The session is started with the usual Goal Finder's pattern.
The Rudiments are put in by Big Mid Ruds, "Since the last time I
audited you ............" (or "Since the last time you were audited .......
" if this is the auditor's first session, or "Since you decided to be
audited .. .." for raw meat).
The general missed W/Hs of the pc are pulled in the body of the early
sessions. When this has been done, remaining sessions are devoted to
havingness.
The pc's havingness process is tested for and found, or is run.
The body of the session is closed.
The Big Ruds for the session are then put in.
The pc is then asked with meter at Sens 16 "In this session was the
room all right?" and this is cleaned. The can squeeze test is then made
with Sens 1.
Goals and gains are taken up and the session is ended.
By end of session the needle should be without pattern and the pc
should be cheerful.
LRH:jw.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright �1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 DECEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE
ADD TO LIST ONE ISSUE THREE
(HCO Bulletin December 4, AD 12)
Correction: Auditor's name at end of second column is part of second
column and is used in assessment.
DIRECTIONS: If anything has ever Rockslammed on List One itself it must be
opposed even if it doesn't Rockslam now. The data of all observations and
security checks is used to find if anything Rockslammed. The case will give
dead horses if a Rockslamming Item is by-passed. Cases that give dead
horses on R2- 12 had a Rockslamming Item on List One that was never
opposed. On cases that have been giving lists on which no RSs occur, Tiger
Drill List One until you get an RS on any button or pain or sensation on
any Item and just oppose it.
After a List One Item has been represented always check it again to see
if it now is Rockslamming. If so, do an opposition list to it in accordance
to whether it gave pn or sen.
Add these additional Items to List One Issue 3:
FRANCHISE FAMILY
10%s HOME
SCIENTOLOGY GROUPS LOVE
GROUP AUDITING PARENTS
MEMBERSHIPS FATHER
REPORTS MOTHER
DISSEMINATION A GROUP
INFRACTIONS GROUPS
PABs GOVERNMENT
ASSESSMENTS ORGANIZATIONS
MID RUDS COMPANY
CHECK OUTS MANAGEMENT
EXAMINERS LABOUR
GLASSES A CLUB
HEALTH PEOPLE
MEDICINE MANKIND
MEDICAL DOCTORS SPECIES
HEALING SYSTEMS LIVING THINGS
PROCESSING MATTER
TESTS MASSES
I.Q. ENERGY
TRAINING SPACE
YOURSELF TIME
YOU FORM
ME (meaning pc) FORMS
ME (meaning auditor) AUDITING ROOMS
SEX THETANS
SEXUAL PRACTICES SPIRITS
A MAN GHOSTS
MEN KNOWLEDGE
A WOMAN THOUGHT
WOMEN RELIGION
A CHILD GODS
CHILDREN GOD
MARRIAGE SUPREME BEING
LRH :dr.rd
Copyright � 1962 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER AD12
Franchise URGENT
R2-12
THE FATAL ERROR
The surest way to retard and upset a case with Routine 2-12 is to find
a Rock Slam on List One, Tiger Drill it down to a dirty needle and then
represent it.
That case will then hang up, 2-12 can be pronounced as unworkable and
the whole thing can be skipped.
Yes, the represent list so taken will RS. Yes, the List One Item tested
again will probably now RS. Yes, the auditor has followed the rules of R2-
12. A11 except one, and that rule is:
IF AN ITEM ROCKSLAMS WHEN CALLED ON LIST ONE OR AT ANY TIME DURING
TIGER DRILLING, NO MATTER HOW BRIEFLY, THAT ITEM MUST BE GIVEN AN
OPPOSITION LIST.
And another rule:
IF YOU AREN'T SURE IF A LIST ONE ITEM GAVE PAIN OR SENSATION, THE
OPPOSITION LIST MUST BE MADE BOTH WAYS, "WHO OR WHAT WOULD IT OPPOSE" AND "
WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE IT".
If more than one Item RSed on List One you take what RSed longest or
was closest to the session.
List One Items do not have to continue to Rockslam forever in order to
do opposition lists to them.
Most pcs who know the rules lie about pain or sensation in order to
pretend List One Items are terminals. Do the opposition lists both ways as
above and nul all.
Routine 2-12 has only this frailty: Rockslammers will not find rock
slams on List One. And Tiger Drilling can be counted on, in inexpert hands,
to suppress the RS.
A case BOGS when you represent an RS-ing Item.
NEVER represent an RS-ing Item. Always oppose it.
Hear me, now. Almost 100% of R2- 12 cases will fail if no attention is
paid to the above.
If you get a case that gets only dead horses, don't go to the Zero A
List. Just write an opposition list to Scientology. You'll be right ninety
percent of the time. The other ten percent RS on Scientology Orgs and
Auditors.
Opposition Lists only on RS-ing Items. Hear me now.
If a case EVER ROCKSLAMMED ON A LIST ONE ITEM, whether on an old
Security Check, a Joburg, a Rock Slam Sec Check, and you now do only
represent lists from List One, that case will hang, or make small gain on
R2-12 until somebody is smart enough to look at the record and oppose that
RS-ing Item.
Honest, the case is finished right now, kaput, wrecked, smashed, ended,
snarled, messed up, ruined, stopped and skewered until a List One Item that
RSed ever so briefly is opposed. Represent Lists will get it nowhere until
this is done.
Hear me, please.
LRH: dr.vmm.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 DECEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise
URGENT
IMPORTANT
ROUTINES 2-12 & 2-10
CASE ERRORS
POINTS OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE
The errors in doing Routine 2-10 and Routine 2-12 are divided into two
broad divisions:
(a) Those of auditing itself;
(b) Those deriving from errors in doing the exact skills of Routines 2-10
and 2-12.
AUDITING ERRORS
This bulletin touches only briefly on the errors of (a) Auditing
Errors. These consist of sloppy form, bad TRs, inability to read a meter,
Auditor Code breaks, Q and A-ing, missing missed W/Hs, doing bad Mid Ruds
or Tiger Drilling and using Auditing form to hold up results.
One remedies bad auditing (as different from bad 2-10 or 2-12) by
following this prescription:
The poorer the auditor, the more a supervisor or instructor takes away
from him the tools of auditing. In short, if an auditor makes bad auditing
errors, one simplifies the auditing to prevent the errors. Don't let him or
her do 2-12. Make such an auditor use only 2-10. Then, as the auditor's
skill in basic auditing improves, the more he or she can be trusted with 2-
12.
Do NOT let an auditor who can't do any kind of a job of basic auditing
do 2-12. Let such an auditor do only 2-10. And then as that auditor's case
improves on 2-10 or 2-12, and as training drills are passed, let the
auditor graduate up to 2-12.
Remember this: 2-12 works all by itself with no auditing niceties. And
it can be prevented from working (but only to some degree) by bad auditing
form or intention.
Strip off Model Session, Mid Ruds, Tiger Drilling, and two-way comm,
demand it be run muzzled, muzzled, muzzled, use the meter only to find
Rockslams, and modern Routine 2 works like a dream, a dream, a dream even
for an auditor whose auditing skill is terrible.
Let a Q and A artist clean cleans on a meter, muck up the Mid Ruds, yap
at the pc, and Routine 2 won't work because it never gets done.
So the training stress and the use stress of Routine 2 is first on
Routine 2, its rules and how it's done, and when the auditor has case gains
and wins, auditing form is then entered upon.
The backwards way is to insist on a good hard study of form before
training on Routine 2. Always hammer Routine 2 home first and get it done,
not fooled with by the Mixed-up Kid from Mid Rud Gulch.
Your main trouble will come from not teaching Routine 2 hard just as itself
before entering upon the niceties of auditing. You have to show the wild
man it's a house before you teach him to serve French Pastry a la Partie.
Of course nothing in this HCO Bulletin should be used to degrade the
value of good auditing form.
Good metering, a smooth command of the TRs, a grip on the basics and a
firm knowledge of fundamentals are vital in an auditor.
You can't get all there is to get out of Routine 2-12 with rough
auditing.
Auditing skill is not just something to acquire. It's the only thing
that gets real auditing done. And good auditors are scarce and I appreciate
them. I've had my share of rough auditing and I know the diamonds and gold
of a smooth, flawless auditor.
But Routine 2, at the time of this writing, and for always in some area
of the world as we expand, will be handled with rough auditor skill.
Therefore, for the purposes of this HCO Bulletin, we will consider the
auditing skill to be rough and show what Routines 2-10 and 2-12 can do in
unpolished hands.
And never fear, when their cases are better and the training can be
stepped up, they'll become polished, never fear. And appreciate being so.
It's my brag I can get a pc out of anything with just auditing skill. That
makes me pretty brave as an auditor. But this "Bring on your lions"
attitude is born out of auditing skills, taught, not "native". I use the
same pattern and patter as you do if you audit text book. But I don't clean
cleans often or miss reads ever and I don't Q and A. You can audit just as
well as I can with practice and study. Why do I know this? Well, auditing
is not my main forte, not even close to my appointments and goals.
We're probably all Rockslammers somewhere on List One and this is Man
pulling himself out of the mud indeed.
So don't run down pure auditing skill. It's more precious than anything
in this universe.
But you can acquire it as you do Routine 2 and after.
Meanwhile don't overrate the power of Routine 2 to work with rough
auditing, so long as the Routine 2 is done right.
-------------
THE ERRORS OF ROUTINE TWO
Routine Two (by which is meant 2-10 & 2-12) has its own rules and these
must be learned first and learned well.
Routine 2 today is a powerful process. And if it can straighten up a pc
so fast, it can also cave him in fast. However such cave-ins, while
dramatic, are very easy to remedy even though they must be remedied with
accuracy. (The remedies are all contained in this HCO Bulletin.)
Remember, in doing Routine 2, the primary pc upset is from badly done
Routine 2, not badly done auditing. To repair a car don't look for paint
scratches when somebody has removed the engine. Auditing form is paint
scratches. The removed engine is flubbed Routine 2.
Routine 2 must be taught hard, not just as a version of auditing but as
itself. It is its own technical package and it doesn't even infringe on the
basics of auditing.
AUDITOR RESPONSIBILITY
Routine 2 has several hills to climb. One of them is Auditor
responsibility. This process has the peculiarity of handing all
responsibility for case gain or worsening to the auditor.
You will hear people who haven't a clue on Routine 2 crying about bad
pcs, bad D of P-ing, bad Ron and blaming everyone but themselves.
Investigate and you'll find only an auditor flub on Routine 2.
All Routine 2 auditor flubs consist of:
(a) Not knowing Routine 2.
(b) Not doing Routine 2.
There are no other Routine 2 auditor flubs.
In Routine 2 all gain or lack of gain is assignable directly and only
to the auditor.
Frightening isn't it?
But encouraging too. For it puts the auditor at cause, wholly and
completely, over the pc's case. You might have known that would happen with
the first all case fast gain process.
DURATION OF PROCESS
Routine 2 is here to stay. You've been used to the changing face of
processing.
That discouraged learning any process very well and setting up to get
it done by one and all. Well, Routine 2 is here to stay. It isn't going to
change. You can invest a great amount of time and effort on learning it.
It's here to stay because where it doesn't get results, the auditor
didn't know it or didn't do it, and we can always remedy that.
It only produces mediocre or worsening results when it either isn't
known or isn't needed.
Further, it is quite easy to do.
And it produces fast, stable results, very startling to even raw meat.
There is more miracle in 50 hours of well done Routine 2 than in the entire
history of the church.
Further it has to be done on every case before a goal can easily or
reliably be found, or even if found, before it can be run.
So there it is. Learn it.
NO AUDITING
The first and greatest error of Routine 2 is No-Auditing.
Yes, the auditor may be sitting there like a one-man band, busy as free
beer at the boiler works and yet not be auditing Routine 2.
Example: Eat up two-thirds of every session with needless beginning,
middle and end rudiments.
Example: Spend two hours Prepchecking the Mid Ruds and then find the
reason the needle is dirty is an incomplete list.
Example: Spend three sessions full of general O/W trying to calm an ARC
breaky pc when in actual fact the auditor has been opposing an Item off an
incomplete list.
It's not just Audit the pc in front of you. That's vital enough. But Audit
the pc in front of you with correct Routine 2.
Auditors have been known to spend hours, days, running old processes to
get the pc "up to running 2-12" when five minutes of 2-12 would have had
the pc sailing.
NO AUDITING means "While seeming to deliver auditing, actually get
nothing done." It's the greatest crime in Routine 2 or Routine 3. NO
AUDITING can be reduced to the finest art. Doing a wrong list, re-doing a
dead horse, these aren't no-auditing. Auditing may have been wasted or may
be slow, but it's still auditing. No, NO AUDITING means going through
endless, useless motions, perhaps in top form, perhaps perfectly, none of
which are calculated to advance the pc's case one inch. Doing havingness
every half page, endlessly Tiger Drilling, doing Mid Ruds just because it's
"good form", all these and a thousand more add up to NO AUDITING. Absolute
essentials, bare bone, and bounteous correct 2-12 are AUDITING.
Mid Ruds, Tiger Drilling are necessary to good auditing but using them
an inch beyond necessity is NO AUDITING.
FAILURE TO SAVE RECORDS
Almost the only way to completely bar the door on the pc is to lose his
case folder or fail to put all lists and reports in it.
Every sheet of every list must have on it the pc's name, date of the
list and the question from which the list comes.
This is the biggest MUST in Routine 2: Preserve the records and make
them identifiable and usable.
FAILING TO FIND RSs ON LIST ONE
Failing to find and utilize an RS on List One is the most common (but
not the most destructive to the pc's health) error in Routine 2.
Example: Auditor has three dead horses. Abandons case. Another auditor
assesses List One, Tiger Drills the RSs out, represents a tick. Gets
another dead horse. Abandons case. Pc now known as a "tough pc". A third
auditor gets cunning, looks over the original assessment, sees "Auditor"
RSed once long ago. It doesn't now, having been Tiger Drilled to death.
Opposes it. Gets a beautiful RSing List. Case starts to fly
This error has been done over, and over and over and is the source of
all dead horses.
Rule: Oppose Every RS found on List One or IA or a "PT consists of"
list. Oppose them even when they only RSed on Tiger Drill buttons. Take the
RSing Item most intimate to the actual session as the first one to use. If
in further doubt take the RSing Item closest to the session the pc is
interested in.
List One, I A or "PT consists of" lists do not have to be RIs to be
opposed. They are locks on RIs. They only need to briefly RS, or to have
been seen to RS at some time, to be opposed. If they RSed at any time they
must be opposed according to whether they are terms or oppterms.
I have seen a case fail to give more than dead horses until somebody
recalled that on a Sec Check test a year before the case had RSed on
"Scientology Orgs" (now not even a tick). When that was opposed, a dial-
wide RS turned on for 55 consecutive pages of Items, a high record.
One remedy is to Tiger Drill "On List One_____", but it isn't
infallible.
REPRESENTING AN RSing ITEM
One of the three most destructive actions to the pc is Representing an
RSing Item. (The other two are opposing the wrong way and opposing an RSing
Item taken from an incomplete list, both included below.)
Representing an RSing Item puts a terrible strain on the pc's
attention. The list may even RS, probably will. But the opposing Item, now
hidden, wreaks havoc on the pc all the time its companion is being listed
on a represent list. A real calm pc can turn into a screamer if an RSing
Item is listed with a represent list, whether it has been opposed or not.
(Note: This is contrary to a 3GAXX action which could be done only
because a detested person wasn't a vital oppterm. It should not be done
even in 3GAXX.)
Rule: Only do opposition lists on RSing Items. Never represent them.
OPPOSE RIs
Always oppose an RI and continue to oppose RIs until you get a
satisfactory package. Never leave a BY-PASSED Item.
To do so is destructive to the preclear. This is not the greatest
source of destructiveness and not every RI by-passed will ruin the
preclear. But once out of three times the pc will be upset.
Example: "Scientology" RSes. A Reliable Item "A slavemaster" is found
on the opposition list. It is not then itself opposed. Pc is upset by
presence of a hidden Item that opposes "A slavemaster". Pc stays upset
until "A slavemaster" is opposed and its RI companion Item "A freedom
Fighter" is found. "Slavery" shows up on the "Opp Scientology" List as the
thing that actually fronted up to "Scientology" when the whole thing was
packaged.
Rule: When a First List RSing Item is opposed and an RI is found, then
Routine 2 steps are incomplete until the found RI is itself opposed.
It goes Represent-oppose-oppose or Oppose, Oppose.
It will be seen that First List RSing Items are usually locks into PT
on actual RIs. It will also be seen that the Rockslams on the First List,
the first opposing RI and the RI that opposes that all match. They have the
same width and speed and pattern. They seldom all RS at the same time but
in sequence of when first found.
Rule: All Items found must be completely packaged.
Rule: All RSs in a package must match in character and vanish when
fully packaged.
Leaving a by-passed Item is also possible because of incomplete lists.
(See below.)
INCOMPLETE LISTS
If, after nulling, you have several Rockslamming Items remaining, your
list is always incomplete.
Bonus packages vanish as soon as spotted. They occur once in a while.
They can be ignored in this rule:
Rule: If you find more than one RS in nulling a list that list is
incomplete and must be completed.
Example: "Preclear (pn)" once RSed so it is opposed. The "Who or what would
a preclear oppose" list is listed and a dozen RSs were seen on listing (OK
so far). The list tested without reaction on the question. The auditor
starts to null the list. Some of the Items that RSed while being listed, RS
now on nulling. List is nulled down to 3 (!) RSing Items. Auditor chooses
one. It RSes nicely. This is "A control device (sen)". Auditor now lists
"Who or what would oppose a control device?" List RSes well. However,
masses tend to close in on pc. Havingness drops. Pc possibly ARC breaky.
Auditor continues On listing. And on. And on. Finally gets to nulling. Very
hard job. Pc cutting up. Auditor tries to pull missed withholds. After much
blood auditor finds four RSing Items left on list, chooses "A wild man" and
tries to package. Pc glum. Very little cognition. TWO Items have been By-
passed. How? Auditing supervisor sees that several Items on the "Who or
what would a pc oppose" list RSed on nulling. Assumes rightly list was
incomplete. Directs it to be completed. Pc smiles brightly and with a
suddenly clean needle lists 80 more Items (several of which RS on listing).
Masses fall away from pc again. No ARC breaks. This time only one Item RSed
on nulling. "A controller (sen)." (Only new list is nulled of course. You
never re-null in 2-12.) RS has mysteriously (and correctly) vanished off
every other RSing Item on that list. The list "Who or what would oppose a
control device?" is wholly scrubbed, being wrong. The auditor now lists
"Who or what would oppose a controller?" The pc happily lists 200 Items
(many RSing). The needle goes clean. The auditor starts nulling. Finds he
has two Items on the first three pages that RS. Has learned his lesson and,
leaving off nulling for the moment, gets pc to add 50 Items. Auditor goes
on nulling. Nulls down to one RSing Item, "An Insane Idiot". The RS on "A
Preclear", "A Controller" and "An Insane Idiot" all matched when seen each
in turn (but "a preclear" doesn't RS any more). Pc cogniting like mad. Very
happy. Masses all moved off and havingness up.
Rule: If in nulling more than one RS is seen on list, that list is
incomplete and must be completed.
There are no exceptions to this rule. Bonus packages blow off on a
completed list.
Also, to clarify, keep in mind this rule:
Rule: If a list does not RS now and then or at least once when being
listed, it will become a dead horse.
That some list Items RSed when the pc said them during listing is
natural.
If, with Suppress clean, more than one of them RSes during nulling,
that list is incomplete.
Also, in passing, don't finish nulling a list before adding to it as a
general practice. Add to it when the pc's needle is dirty or when you see
more than one RS on it during nulling. The pc ARC breaks if you keep
completing the nulling of the existing list and then adding.
WRONG WAY OPPOSE
Pcs are not always right when telling you it's a terminal (pn) or
oppterm (sen). They even sometimes lie to try to save their face (to keep
from looking bad in an auditor's eyes or the world, or to seem even more
villainous than they are).
The only real test of a right way oppose is whether or not the list
lists easily with IMPROVED SKIN TONE in the pc and improved cheerfulness,
and if it produces one RSing Item that packages later.
If you just can't tell which way to oppose, oppose both ways and then
decide on pc's appearance which way was right and continue it.
Wrong way opposition is not usual. Usually the pc tells the truth and
all is well. But when a list is listed wrong way to on opposition it's
long, horrible and deadly.
The pc goes faintly grey, green yellow or blackish, looks worse, and the
list gets endless. A wrong way list will RS. So it's only pc appearance
that tells the story. Routine 2 is beneficial. Pcs that are listed with
right way opposition look brighter, younger, with a more translucent skin
tone. You won't make a mistake if you can tell the difference between a
young boy and an old man, it's that distinct. (Remember, a pc will also
look worse as above if you took an Item from an Incomplete list or
committed any of the other R2 errors in this HCO Bulletin.)
LISTS THAT WON'T COMPLETE
The only reasons a list will not complete are:
(a) Wrong Source
(b) Wrong Way To Oppose.
In either case there is something wrong with the source of the list.
That a list in listing RSes is no guarantee of rightness of source. A
wrong way to list will RS. Some lists taken from a wrong source cycle RS,
DR, Clean needle, RS, DR, Clean needle.
Wrong sources are:
1. A First List Item is opposed that didn't ever RS,
2. An "RI" grabbed off an incomplete list that must be completed,
3. An Item that was a terminal being opposed as though it were an
oppterm and vice versa,
4. On a represent list, the Item being represented actually was an RSing
Item,
5. On a represent list the Item being represented was badly chosen and
of no interest to the pc.
There are no other wrong sources and thus no other R2 way to get a list
that won't complete. But when you do get a list that won't complete, be
very careful to look over the above 5 reasons and pick out the right one.
You may have to complete an earlier list first and scrub the one you're on.
Incompleting lists are usually abandoned without further patch-up.
How long is an Incomplete List? How long is a piece of string?
LONG LONG LISTS
Don't ever be afraid to have a long list, only be afraid of short ones.
But when a list is running up toward thousands, something is wrong.
Endless Lists stem basically from wrong source as above or from the
auditor's failure to understand what indicates a complete list.
If, on close study of the case folder and pc, Routine 2 errors seem to
be absent-the source is right and not something taken from another list
itself incomplete, if the oppose is right way to, then look for the
following:
(a) Pc is not answering auditing question or
(b) Pc has decided something was his Item and is representing it or is
otherwise operating on a decision.
The remedies are to get Decide in well and to make sure, without
upsetting him, that the pc is answering the auditing question.
And if that is all OK, then it's just a long list, so complete it.
Rule: A list is complete when it can be nulled and when it produces
just one RI that RSes on Tiger Drilling and stays in.
A list can be nulled only when a needle is clean (except in 2-10).
The definition of a CLEAN NEEDLE is one which flows, producing no
pattern or erratic motions of the smallest kind with the auditor sitting
looking at it and doing nothing. A CLEAN NEEDLE is not just something that
doesn't react to a particular question. It's a lovely slow flow, usually a
rise, most beautifully expressed on a Mark V at 64 sensitivity.
A list has to be listed until this needle flow is observed (with no Mid
Ruds put in). But ruds or no ruds, a CLEAN NEEDLE always appears when a
list is complete.
A DIRTY NEEDLE is one that jerks, tips, dances, halts, is stuck or has
any random action on it with the auditor sitting looking at it doing
nothing.
There are the Auditing methods of converting a dirty needle to a clean
needle, both as defined above. These are all the skills of auditing used
with Big Mid Rud buttons.
Now entirely and distinctly separate from Auditing skills for cleaning
a needle, there are the Routine 2 methods for converting a dirty needle to
a clean needle.
Usually both Auditing and Routine 2 methods are used to clean a needle
so that one can nul, the former briefly, the latter abundantly.
However, do not overlook the demonstrable fact that Routine 2 methods
for cleaning a needle are very beneficial and lasting in results, whereas
purely auditing methods (like Mid Ruds) have value only for the moment and,
even though auditing methods are desirable in this operation, when the
Routine 2 is in error, the clean needle is really impossible to achieve
longer than seconds with auditing methods.
The obvious solution to cleaning a needle is to first have Routine 2 as
perfect as possible (the errors outlined in this HCO Bulletin uncommitted
or being rapidly corrected) and then use auditing methods.
Try it in reverse (auditing methods first and then using corrections of
Routine 2) and you will not only fail to get a needle clean longer than
seconds, you may also waste the better part of an intensive trying to do
it.
So spend hours straightening up Routine 2 errors and doing it right and
brief minutes with auditing methods when necessary.
And don't revile a pc for having a dirty needle. It's the auditor who
dirties it up with incorrect or inaccurate Routine 2, not the pc.
Now a clean needle is vital in order to nul a list. Don't ever try to
nul a list with the needle dirty. If the Routine 2 is right, the needle
will clean up with two minutes' work of Big Mid Ruds. If Routine 2 errors
(wrong list source, list incomplete, wrong way oppose, etc, as per this HCO
Bulletin) exist and Routine 2 is being done wrong, then two hours' worth of
Big Mid Ruds will not clean a dirty needle.
Any of the Routine 2 errors taken up in this HCO Bulletin will create a
dirty needle and keep it dirty and leave the auditor sweating over Mid Ruds
and the pc going mad trying to answer the questions. Yes, the Mid Ruds are
out. But why? Because one or more serious Routine 2 errors as described in
this HCO Bulletin are present.
So see the light. If you sweat on Mid Ruds as an auditor, curse them as
a pc or see a co-auditor dripping exasperation over Mid Ruds and the needle
won't stay clean, look
at the Routine 2, not the difficulty with Mid Ruds. Look for the errors
here described. Check them off on the case, one by one, and don't even be
satisfied that it's only "No-Auditing". Check all the errors off, section
by section. You'll be startled.
So in general, difficult Mid Ruds and dirty needle indicate wrong
Routine 2, not bad auditing. Somebody has flubbed the Routine 2 before the
auditing was flubbed. Once the Routine 2 is in error, auditing becomes
impossible.
This gives no excuse for bad metering, cleaning cleans, trying to look
like an auditor but ignoring results. Auditing errors do exist. And can be
serious, but a pc running on right Routine 2 would forgive the Pope for
having a forked tail. You almost can't muddy up a pc running on right
Routine 2.
Here's a trick. Don't try to nul a list until you've seen a clean
flowing needle for a lot of Items, maybe 50. Then get in fast Mid Ruds on
the list and do it without cleaning any cleans. Then start nulling. If the
needle dirties up after 30-40 Items, skip Mid Ruds, just show the pc the
page and have him spot any big thoughts he had on it. Then immediately get
back to nulling. If the needle is dirty still, resume listing until it's
clean. Just do those actions and (given error free Routine 2 as per this
HCO Bulletin) you'll have a smooth, smooth happy time of it in nulling.
Do anything you don't have to do in auditing Routine 2 and you're in
trouble in the auditing department. Bang out almost total Routine 2 and
you're in clover. Give 1/10th of the session over to goals, Mid Ruds and
other auditing actions and 9/10ths of the session to pure Routine 2 Actions
and you'll really win. And that l/10th includes any Mid Ruds on the list as
well. Give half the session to auditing and half to Routine 2 and you'll be
in continuous trouble.
The righter the Routine 2, the less auditing you'll have to do.
So how long is a list? Can you nul it with a needle that requires only
a pc inspection of a page to keep it clean? Are all but one of the RSs that
happened in auditing dead when you nulled? Are your pages long streams of
X's? Did you have to use suppress only once per page (fast check) to keep
it clean?
Well, that's a complete list. If it gave you an RI. Just one.
So how long is a list?
But if all the above is true and a pc's lists are still very long,
another thing can be wrong.
That wrongness usually is the pc's confronting ability being driven
down by auditor unconfrontability. (But also can be caused by a wrong RI or
other errors gone before it as covered in this HCO Bulletin.)
The auditor Qs and As, yap, yaps, nags the pc, blames, gets in endless
Mid Ruds, cleans cleans, misses reads or does something else.
The length of an auditor's pc's lists is to some degree proportional to
the Rough auditing or no-auditing done by the auditor. (And also by a
failure to use Mid Ruds and TD in the right places when necessary.)
We have known since '55 that rough auditing reduces havingness. Here's
why: Rough auditing lowers the pc's ability to confront in the session. The
pc's havingness is proportional to his ability to confront in the session.
If a pc's havingness by can squeeze test is lower at session end than at
beginning on Routine 2, then there's something wrong with the auditing or
with the way Routine 2 is being applied (one of the above Routine 2 errors
is being made).
The remedy for the bad auditing is to make the auditor only acknowledge
anything and everything the pc says or put it on the list. Tear out all
Rudiments, Tiger
Drills, two-way comm, and forbid any chance to comment or act on an Origin
by the pc, and get only Routine 2 done.
The remedy for Routine 2 errors (and the errors themselves) are given
above in this HCO Bulletin.
CONCLUSION
Routine 2 does not have an endless parade of DO-NOTS. They are
basically just those above.
Simple, really.
And I've not seen one session on Routine 2 that was going really wrong,
go wrong on auditing errors alone. Routine 2 sessions go wrong on bad
Routine 2. The auditing form and meter errors start to pile up after
Routine 2 has been balled up. One or more of the above Routine 2 errors has
been done and overlooked.
The reason why Routine 2 errors are more deadly than purely auditing
errors is that Routine 2 is handling the pc by batches of lifetimes. All
the stress and gore- and agony of generations exist on the lists of any one
package. An auditing error can be gross and get by unless it is sitting on
a Routine 2 error. Then the tiniest auditing flub can produce a reaction
like an earthquake. The charge is all coming from Routine 2 mishandling and
is evident on the surface only by the auditing error.
CASE REMEDY
Routine 2 case patch-up is elementary, done with a knowledge of the
above errors. Just find out which one of the above sections is being
violated. And get it done. The error will only be one of the above to cause
case non-progress or worsening.
The sections are given in order of importance.
I will shortly work up a series of actual case history case repairs. So
save the records and you save all.
SUMMARY
Routine 2-10 and 2-12 are their own technology and must be learned as
such.
Routine 2 errors are more shaking to a case than errors in form and
meter (except where the auditor can't even see a Rock Slam!) and where a
case is not winning on Routine 2 auditing it is the Routine 2 that must be
reviewed-and fast. The elements to be reviewed are all listed above by
sections in order of importance. Of course many other smaller fantastic
errors can be done and will be invented but they will be junior in value to
those listed above and will be reported when found.
Routine 2 will be with us a long, long time and it is worth learning
well. It takes the toughest case apart and is the only process that can
start the actual clearing of 805'o or more of all cases.
I have done or reviewed thousands of hours of auditing in forming and
organizing and testing Routine 2.
It is the most gratifying (and sometimes hair-raising) auditing I have
ever done or viewed. You can't oversell Routine 2. You just can't. For it
is the first gateway to light, life and liberty for all Mankind at last.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dr.rd
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JANUARY AD13
Central Orgs
ACADEMY CURRICULUM
HOW TO TEACH AUDITING AND ROUTINE 2
INTRODUCTION
With the placing of a clearing technology into HCA/HPA hands, we must
revise our concept of training.
Routine 2-12 is complicated and exact. But as it is the only thing
known which cracks all cases, we have no choice in the matter. We can and
must learn it well. It must not be indifferently learned. But as it is not
going to change as is well proven, time and effort can be spent upon it and
must be.
We must rise to the occasion. We must use all we know to learn and
teach all we have to teach to get Routine 2 done.
CHECK SHEETS
There are two distinctly different series of check sheets for doing
Routine 2 processes and auditing. These are:
(a) Those that apply to Routine 2, the GPM and data listing,
nulling and case errors and repair;
(b) Those that apply to auditing, its basics, skills, the meter.
Although these associate and interlock, they are two separate subjects
of study.
For years we have faced the arbitrary that those whose cases got in the
road of their auditing yet had to assimilate auditing theory and practice.
Routine 2 well done removes with some rapidity these case barriers to
auditing.
Therefore there are several phases desirable in studying auditing and
Routine 2.
V UNIT CLASS 0
FIRST PHASE
For a new student, doing Routine 2-10 precedes study of auditing and
Routine 2. This is done under close supervision on a co-audit basis with
the Co-audit Supervisor taking a hand on cases, checking out Items,
correcting cases, etc.
This is done until the student has found in another and has had found
in himself 2 or 3 packages. Accuracy is the essence of this first step,
otherwise the wasted time and wrong Items will give the whole action the
tone of despair.
Only good results are stressed, not the form of how they are achieved.
In this first phase we want the student to see that Routine 2 produces
changes for the better in himself and the pc and is worth learning. This is
what we're trying to show.
We remove, if the Routine 2 is good, the barriers to learning auditing
and Scientology.
All we want then from the first phase is:
(a) Reality on the benefits of the process and auditing; and
(b) Removal of the barriers to being a good auditor.
W UNIT CLASS Ia
SECOND PHASE
This phase actually starts the training of a Scientologist. He or she,
however, should have started its check sheets in the V unit.
We teach the basics of Scientology, its history, the Auditor's Code,
Axioms, the ARC triangle and Tone Scale out of the old Notes on Lectures
booklet.
In practical and auditing we teach and do objective processes, Op Pro
by Dup and the CCHs.
We wish to accomplish this in this phase:
(a) A Reality that Scientology is a real subject and very precise,
not a mixture of Indian philosophy and cute tricks, and give the
student solid grounding on pure Scientology basics, disrelated from
auditing; and
(b) Get the student capable of repetition of commands and unafraid
in actual physical handling of other bodies.
X UNIT CLASS Ib
THIRD PHASE
We now enter the student upon a phase of formal auditing consisting of
theory and practical, using all the basics of auditing, the TRs, the meter,
fine points.
This phase should specialize in basic auditing skills, very precisely
applicable to handling an auditing session, a meter, meter drills, anti Q
and A, TRs 0-4, Model Session, Mid Ruds, Missed Withholds, etc.
And we get the student to run formal processes on the Meter until he or
she understands a meter. These processes consist only of ARC Straight Wire,
comm processes, nothing that will disturb 2-12 or run out Rockslams. The
idea of this auditing is to get the student used to handling a session with
competence.
From this phase we expect:
(a) The basics of auditing in theory and practical; and
(b) Confidence in confronting a bank and handling a pc on a meter
with good form.
Y UNIT CLASS IIa
FOURTH PHASE
In the fourth phase our interest is in Prepchecking as an action and a
prelude to lists in the form of a Problems Intensive.
In theory and practical we teach how to do a Problems Intensive,
advanced metering, how to detect case changes, better sessioning, more TRs
0-4, more basics of Scientology such as Axioms and Logics.
In auditing, the student does a Problems Intensive and receives one.
The stress is on good sessioning and RESULTS.
From this phase we expect:
(a) A good command of a Problems Intensive theory and practical,
how to detect case changes; and
(b) The ability to actually audit to a good result and keep Mid
Ruds in and CLEAN A NEEDLE.
Z UNIT CLASS IIb
FIFTH PHASE
This is a theory and practical phase for Routine 2-12.
The student also audits Routine 2-12 under supervision.
The whole check sheet for Routine 2-12 is thrown at the student. The
long HCO Bulletins are segmented into a page or two and thereby made into
several passes (the student studies and is examined on them in segments).
In auditing, the student is permitted to do full 2-12 and the stress is
on RESULTS with accurate Routine 2-12.
PG UNIT-CLASS II
SIXTH PHASE
This is a post-graduate phase on Routine 2-12. It was formerly known as
"Interne".
The theory and practical are all on the stress of CASE REPAIR and how
to supervise Routine 2.
The student is used to help supervise V unit students as his auditing
activity with stress on case errors.
The remainder of the student's time is taken up with preparation for
examination for his HCA/HPA.
The student may be used for charity cases and what was formerly Interne
work.
SUMMARY
This is about a three months' course if steamed through. If it takes
longer, then the V unit was flubbed.
If a student hangs up longer than a reasonable time in any upper phase,
he is returned to the V unit and is required to do and receive Routine 2
while continuing to try to pass upper level check sheets so as not to hold
him up.
Students are, of course, expected to study evenings and week-ends.
The three section course plan is adhered to of Theory, Practical and
Auditing.
Auditing in the Auditing Section is done for RESULTS, not to teach
auditing. Practical is where they practise.
Students are progressively assigned to their units and are re-classed
as they pass out of a unit.
The Model of this Course is Saint Hill but it may not be so advertised.
The chief difference of course is the necessary re-introduction of a
student body tape programme such as in the old days. The last hour of the
day is used for this. A sequence of about 75 tapes, mainly of general
historical or auditing interest, are played to the whole student body,
assembled in the main assembly hall, one tape each day, regardless of the
students' classification. They are given quizzes on these tapes, very
brief. No other tape use is made in an Academy. There are no headphone
recorders. If tape play speakers are not good the students won't learn
anything from the tapes. When tapes are omitted as a whole class activity,
the whole direction, meaning and ethic of Scientology goes sour in an area
and the students haven't a clue what Scientology is for and you find them
idling about driving off pcs with nutty chatter.
This Academy Curriculum requires a D of T and two instructors. To this
can be added a Training Admin who is also Extension Course. The D of T
becomes Auditing Supervisor, the other two instructors are the Theory
Supervisor and Practical Supervisor.
The Classes are awarded on the Completion of the phase and designate
the check sheets. Students get canceled out of units but not off check
sheets.
The only things that can keep students from passing through this course
rapidly are (a) failure to schedule precisely, (b) failure to demand and
obtain auditing results in all units, (c) local non-comprehension of R2-12,
(d) capricious and unreal theory and practical examinations and (e) failure
to enforce the course regulations. A full Academy will attend to all these
things. An empty one will have ignored them.
It is no real sin to do a lousy job of auditing. It is a terrible crime
to do a bad job of training and dissemination because then there's nothing
left to pick the cases up in this life or the next. Every bad auditor we
turn out costs us a hundred preclears. Every good one puts us closer to our
objectives.
An Academy Class II should be good enough to go to work at once as an
HGC auditor without causing the HGC a moment's worry.
It can be done because it must be.
LRH:jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6301C08 SHSBC-226 R2-10 and R2-12
** 6301C08 SHSBC-227 Case Repair
** 6301C10 SHSBC-228 R2-12
** 6301C10 SHSBC-229 How to Audit
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JANUARY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2
IMPORTANT
OPPOSITION LISTS
RIGHT AND WRONG OPPOSE
Most PT terminals and oppterms look more like Coterms than clean
Terminals or Opposition Terminals when first contacted. They become more
definite Terms or Oppterms after they have been listed a page. While you
should be able to make the right choice in most cases by the usual test
given in the 2-12 steps you can err.
Your lists will become endless and unnullable and your pc will go
downhill if you oppose an RI wrong way to.
Therefore, while listing, carefully observe the needle and the pc. The
TA is meaningless in this test. The Indications for testing "Right Way
Oppose" and "Wrong Way Oppose" are the subject of this bulletin.
In opposing a Reliable Item you can consider it a Terminal (because pc
said it gave pain) and list "Who or What would a Catfish oppose?" Whereas
in actual fact it was an Oppterm and should have been listed "Who or What
would oppose a Catfish?" Or Vice Versa. Sad consequences follow a wrong
choice.
POTENTIAL MISCALLING AN RI
Even the best auditor can make a mistake in calling an RI he's gotten a
Terminal or an Oppterm. The pc is foggy as to what's pain or sensation. The
RI may have both. Sometimes Terminals are so covered with Sen there is no
pain at first. Sometimes the hidden Terminal is so hard down on the Oppterm
RI it seems like a Terminal.
Further, you can be doing an Opposition to an RI list, expecting a
Terminal to come up and get, in fact, another Oppterm. This is fine. Accept
it if the list only RSed once on nulling. But the opposing Terminal is
still hidden and must be gotten. Pcs, you see, often put Terms and Oppterms
on the same list.
STABLE DATUM:
Always regard the identity of an RI as a Term or Oppterm as potentially
wrong until listed and tested as per this HCO Bulletin. Do the best you can
with usual tests to tell what it is before you start listing and choose
your oppose question accordingly. But be ready to find that what was a
Terminal is really an Oppterm or vice versa and should have been opposed
"the other way around".
You have only two list questions to use in opposing a Reliable Item.
These are "Who or What would oppose a ?" and "Who or What would a
oppose?" For every Reliable Item there is only one of the above that is
right. The other is wrong. There are no true Coterms-they only seem to be
both a Terminal (pain) and an Oppterm (sensation).
When it comes to listing you will benefit the pc only by listing the
right way. The other oppose question then is the wrong way.
If you list the "wrong way" (using the wrong question), you'll get an
ENDLESS LIST that never completes and won't nul.
You therefore have a choice of two questions and one of them is right
and the other wrong, always. If you choose the right one and list it, the
pc benefits. If you choose the wrong one and list it the pc will get worse
rapidly, right in the session before your eyes.
It often happens that you start listing the wrong way. This is because
you failed to find out correctly if the RI you were about to list an
opposition list to was a Terminal (pain) or an Opposition Terminal
(sensation). The pc said he had "sen" but actually felt "pain". Or the pc
did have "sen" and the pain appeared afterward. In short, because PT
Terminals look like Coterms very often, neither the pc nor the auditor can
tell on some RIs. This happens to some RIs on every case.
The solution to the dilemma is to test by listing a page or two.
There are certain definite signs of wrong way opposition. They can be
seen with half an eye. There is no need to go on until your pc is caved in
and you have 99 pages of Items to find out you can't nul and should have
opposed the other way around.
A list right way to or wrong way to will Rockslam, so that's no test in
itself. The tests, five in number, are a little more delicate:
Aside from original tests for Term or Oppterm, how to tell if an oppose
list is right way to:
RIGHT WAY INDICATIONS
1. In Listing needle is loose and gets looser;
2. Pc's skin tone gets progressively better as he or she lists;
3. Masses move out off pc;
4. Pc gives Items easily;
5. List completes easily.
WRONG WAY OPPOSE INDICATIONS
If List is wrong way oppose (which is to say the wording is reversed,
such as "Who or What would oppose a Catfish?" as different from "Who or
What would a Catfish oppose?") these things will always happen:
1. In listing, the needle gets tighter, stiff and tends to jerk. It
goes in cycles, DR, RS, DR, clean, DR, RS, DR, clean, etc;
2. The pc's skin tone gets progressively worse, darker and off colour
and the pc looks older;
3. Masses move into the pc and make him feel more or less squashed;
4. Pc gives Items with some small difficulty and tends to invalidate
them and RI being listed from;
5. List doesn't ever complete. You may be able to nul a while but the
needle will dirty up and no amount of Mid Ruds will clean it.
Whether your list is right way oppose or wrong way oppose the pc may
get pain and sensation, even nausea. Indeed, be worried only if the pc
doesn't. These don't
count. Pain and Sensation are used for the first test you make in
selection. But aren't used beyond that test given in the Steps of 2-12.
It's the darkening colour of the pc and his or her apparent age that count.
Your tests above are visual not getting data from the pc. Pcs will list
wrong way to and plow themselves right on in with no complaint.
If you start listing wrong way to, and then turn it around, the pc will
have trouble giving right way to Items for a bit, and then they come at a
rapid easy flow and you get all the above 5 things for the right way list.
Unless you change around to the right way and continue to list the wrong
way you will continue to get the 5 indications given for wrong lists.
Sometimes an RI is so fouled up you have to test by listing one way,
then the other and then back to the first way again.
A little experience is solid gold, for you begin to see the 5
indications for right lists and the 5 indications for wrong lists and
recognize them more quickly.
When you have opposed wrongly and then, in opposing right way to you
get a complete list, you never bother to nul the wrong way list. You just
abandon it. The RI won't be on it. You only nul the right way oppose list.
Rule: Never nul lists taken from wrong sources. Just abandon.
No list ever went to 50 pages that was right way to. Right Way Oppose
Lists that can be completed are probably all below 500 Items, the usual
being around 250 Items.
Wrong Way Oppose is the chief source of difficulty for any opposition
list, rivalled only by Incomplete Lists as a trouble maker in Routine 2.
A wrong way oppose list is of course "Wrong Source" as one is using
"Catfish" as a Terminal instead of "Catfish" as an Oppterm or vice versa.
Endless lists also come from just continuing to list on and on and on,
the pc's needle being dirty by "Protest". This is just silly. Some
supervisor may develop as a stable datum, "If the needle is dirty, just
continue listing." And this is wrong. A needle does get clean when a right
way oppose list is completed. But wrong way oppose or Mid Ruds Out can also
make a needle dirty.
On an oppose list, if a needle is dirty three main things can be wrong:
1. List is right way oppose but incomplete. Remedy: Complete it to
one RS only seen on nulling.
2. List is wrong way oppose. Remedy: Oppose it the other way and
watch the signs (above) until you're sure. Then go on and complete.
3. Mid Ruds are out-pc protesting the session or overlisting.
Wrong Source (opposing a wrong item) can mess up a pc also. But why'd
you take an Item from an incomplete or wrong way list in the first place
and then oppose it? The remedy of this one lies before the fact of wrong
way oppose, so is not the subject of this HCO Bulletin.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JANUARY 1963
CenOCon
Franchise URGENT
Students
ROUTINE 2-SIMPLIFIED
(Communicator: Mimeo AT ONCE and
RUSH TO ALL TECH DIVISIONS)
I will shortly release Routine 2-12A which will incorporate Routine 2-
10 and 2-12 with enormous simplification.
While the basic processes and purposes remain the same, I have worked
out a number of simplifications that are greatly needed.
Having seen some of the trouble with R2- 10 and 12, I have been
furiously working to improve Indicators. I've now proved out some
invariable indicators that will completely wipe out flubs if followed
exactly as given in this HCO Bulletin. If they don't work for you, the R2
being done is from wrong source. These indicators are not wrong.
I have also succeeded in developing a system in 2-12A that eliminates
nulling, thus saving half the auditing time, and eliminates Tiger Drilling-
a weak spot for HPAs. As the sessions can be run with almost no Mid Ruds or
ruds, this leaves auditors with only an RS to see on the meter and cuts out
almost all other meter reading. R2 then comes much more easily into the
realm of Co-Audit.
If you don't get results from R2 it's being done wrong. I've got the
variables pretty well licked.
Until the full release of R2-12A, incorporate these changes which
belong to 2-12A into any R2 you are doing or supervising. Change over at
once. Abandon the old way where it conflicts as these data below will keep
you out of trouble and stop some of the glaring errors being done. Apply
these below to any 2-10 or 2-12 currently being done.
TONE ARM
The Tone Arm is used in R2- l 2A.
On any list done on a preclear, whether source, represent or oppose,
RUN ALL THE TONE ARM ACTION OUT OF THE LISTING. LIST AT LEAST 50 ITEMS
BEYOND THE POINT THE TONE ARM BECAME MOTIONLESS.
Keep the tone arm readings in the left margin of the list column. Note
TA action about every 5 Items or at every change.
In a wrong-way-to oppose list, the TA tends to be more stationary.
If you don't run the TA action out and at least 50 Items beyond, plus
50 Items beyond the last RS seen on listing, the list will be incomplete.
Sometimes several pages have to be listed with a motionless TA before
the final RS comes on the list but ordinarily the final RS comes within 50
Items after the TA has been motionless for 50 Items.
LIST BEYOND LAST RS
List at least 50 Items beyond the last RS on the list. Do not stop
listing with the last RSing Item. If you do you can be fooled. If you get a
new RS in the 50, list 50 more beyond that and so on.
TEST LIST BOTH WAYS
List a few Items on each way oppose as a conclusive test to find right
way oppose. The needle gets stiffer on the wrong way oppose. THE NEEDLE
LOOKS LOOSER ON RIGHT WAY OPPOSE. If you still can't decide, again test
either way until you are sure.
Use all normal tests but list a little each way to be sure.
WRONG WAY LIST
A list is wrong way to if
1. The list doesn't RS.
2. The RSes on the list increase in incidence-more RSes per Item on
later pages. (The number is quite marked.)
3. The pc looks darker and mass is pulling in on the pc.
4. The list is inordinately long-40-50 pages.
5. The needle gets tighter and stiffer as you list (the most noticeable
test). (A needle also gets tighter on an added to list if you didn't
read the right Item to the pc.)
VANISHED RS
If a case has RSed and suddenly can't be made to no matter what you do,
the RS is swallowed into some earlier incomplete or fumbled action.
Go back and handle the earlier action correctly.
Sometimes an Item grabbed off an incomplete source list (but never use
one that was found by representing an RSing Item) has to be handled fully
to get the RS back. Example: Incomplete Parts of Existence List. "God" RSed
heavily on it. Some auditor grabbed it and opposed it. List abandoned when
directions came to use Items only from complete source lists.
Eight Reliable Items later, RSes on the case vanish or get tiny. Pc's
PTPs heavy and not being resolved by R2. Solution: Go back and get the
"God" package complete. The big RS will come back on. (Make sure it's
opposed right way to this time.)
FOUR ITEM PKGS
The biggest change from 2-12 to 2-12A is the four Item Package.
Always get four Items in a row.
Complete any existing 2 or 3 Item packages on a case to 4 Items whether
the last Reliable Item found still RSes or not.
The four are:
(1) Reliable Item taken from a completed source list.
(2) Reliable Item taken by opposing (1).
(3) Reliable Item taken by opposing (2).
(4) Reliable Item taken by opposing (3).
It will be found that (4) is in opposition also to ( I ) if all was
done correctly.
All lists (1) to (4) must be complete, to no TA action and beyond,
right-way-to opposition in each case. Where a represent enters in (which
is seldom), there are five lists for four Items. These are:
(1) Source list (complete to no TA for 50 Items but no RS).
(2) Represent list from last Item in on source list. This is RSing
Item. This is the first RI. List must be complete.
(3) Oppose list on RI found in (2) just above. This gives second
RI.
(4) Oppose list on RI found in (3). This gives third RI.
(5) Oppose list or RI found in (4). This gives fourth RI.
Whether you get your first RI from an oppose or represent list, you
always wind up with 4 RIs.
PACKAGING
A package always consists of Two RIs that are terminals and Two RIs
that are oppterms.
The terminals oppose either oppterm, one better than the other.
This is two packages 2-12 style, one pkg 2-12A style.
The Term-Oppterm of each pair must be of same order of magnitude.
The auditor has no business with the significances of Items. He never
suggests an Item or goal. He never rejects one because of significance.
Here is an actual package. 1st RI found, Oppterm RELIGION; 2nd RI
found, Terminal A CONQUEROR; 3rd RI found, Oppterm PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS;
4th RI found, Terminal A DISEMBODIED SPIRIT.
[pic]
In a 2-12A package you have to have 2 terminals and two oppterms,
opposing and cross opposing as above.
Otherwise you've goofed and will the pc hedge and ARC break! Oh, my!
The sequence may be (1)Oppterm RI, (2)Term RI, (3)Oppterm RI, (4)Term
RI, or it may be (1) Represent Item, (2) Oppterm RI, (3 ) Term RI, (4)
Oppterm RI, (5) Term RI. Or it may be (1) Term RI, (2) Oppterm RI, (3) Term
RI, (4) Oppterm RI, or (1) Represent Item, (2) Term RI, (3) Oppterm RI, (4)
Term RI, (5) Oppterm RI.
Always 4 RIs, always 2 Terms, always 2 Oppterms.
If they don't come out that way then one of the lists was wrong way to
or incomplete or both.
NULLING
R2-12A doesn't nul a full RSing list. Only a non-RS list to be
represented gets nulled. And these are infrequently needed.
One completes the list to no TA action plus 50 or more Items and then
50 Items beyond the last RS seen on listing. The 50-50 rule is minimum, not
maximum. It sometimes must be more.
One tells the pc that one is going to read him the next to last RS and
does so. If it RSes, one adds to the list until a new RSing Item is seen
and 50 Items beyond it. Then one reads the now next to last RSing Item
again. (No Tiger Drill.) Auditor tells pc: "This is the next to the last
RSing Item, not THE Item."
When the next to last RSing Item does not RS on reading it to the pc
(no TD), one then tells the pc that his or her Item will now be read and
reads the LAST RSing Item to the pc. It should RS without TD. If the next
to the last Item did RS, one does not read the last RSing Item to the pc
but just returns to listing. If the RS is off the last Item seen to RS read
the non-RSing Items just before and just after it, always to be sure. The
RS could have been noted for the wrong Item.
When one has read it to the pc and seen it RS, the auditor says, "That
Rock Slams" and watches the pc. The auditor does no other action for a
while, says nothing else. To speak or engage in new actions will rip the
pc's attention to shreds. This is a critical moment. One watches the pc's
face to see if it darkens or lightens. Darkness= wrong Item. Lightens =
right Item. (Watch the area below the pc's eyes, the eye pouches.) Pc
doesn't know if it's his Item or not = wrong Item. Pc knows it's his Item =
Right Item. Pc ARC breaks shortly or gets critical of auditor = wrong Item.
Pc happier = right Item. Pc doesn't cognite = wrong Item. Pc cognites =
right Item.
While pc is cogniting auditor will see the Item continue to RS on the
meter. The RS may fade out or narrow as pc cognites. This does not mean
wrong Item necessarily.
Even if the RS vanishes after a good bit (5 minutes?) (no TD) it is still
opposed. (3) is more likely to fade than (1) and (2) RIs. (2) is more
likely to fade than (1) RI. (4) fades almost at once.
The Item must always be the last RS on the list and must always RS the
first few times read without Tiger Drill (providing session rudiments are
even vaguely in).
If you aren't sure of the RSes while listing, nul for RS only from the
one above the next to last Item to the end of list. Don't nul whole list
ever.
If an added portion has an RS on it there is no need to nul earlier
than it either as no earlier RS will exist. However always test next to
last RS. If two RSes appear before a list is added to (next to last and
last) or if any two Items on a list RS before a list is added to, that list
is incomplete and does not have the Item on it.
WRONG ITEM SIGNS
A wrong Item given to the pc as his Item does the following:
1. Darkens pc's eye shadows and face;
2. Pc immediately has more mass than before pc was told Item;
3. TA tends to stay up and stuck;
4. Pc slightly or greatly ARC breaks;
5. Pc doesn't cognite at all or cognites briefly and stops (and
ARC breaks);
6. Pc can't really understand how it is his Item, but sometimes is
propitiatively agreeable with no cognitions;
7. Pc can't really see how it fits in package but may say so
diffidently.
RIGHT ITEM SIGNS
A right Item given to the pc as his Item does the following:
1. Lightens pc's eye shadows and face;
2. Pc has no more mass about him than before Item was read to him;
3. TA usually blows down;
4. Pc feels more cheerful;
5. Pc cognites, usually at length;
6. Pc sees just how it is his Item;
7. Pc sees how it fits against other Items in any package.
The auditor must check up on all 7 points above as well as the RS,
making 8 points in all.
If the wrong indicators aren't present and neither are the right ones,
list on further. Don't be a niggardly lister. Another hour's listing can
save 50 hours case repair.
DIRTY NEEDLE
Lists that never go clean needle are wrong way to.
You never end up a list with a Dirty needle if you run all the TA
action out on a right way oppose list.
You don't have to have a clean needle anyway on this type of nulling.
RS MATCHING
The RS you see on the first RI of any package exactly repeats itself in
width and speed on each one of the other 3 RIs in a 4 RI package.
It is the same RS when listed and when called, also.
A package has a characteristic RS. If one of the Items doesn't match
the RS, it's wrong. If none of the 4 RSes seen are similar, run don't walk
to the nearest Academy and as soon as the pc gets out of the hospital send
him to an HGC.
The RSes in one package all match exactly when first seen and first
called to pc. Of course after a few cognitions RI (3) and RI (4) of the
package may lose their RSes, but not for a while and usually only after
being listed.
An RS is gone when it's listed against.
You only have one RS of a package of 4 RIs RSing at any one time.
RI (1) RSes until listed. Then RI (2) RSes until listed, etc.
RSes that grind out on packaging were wrong Items.
You never audit an RI in any way but listing for another RI.
Your memory and a note of width are your only tools in matching RSes on
a package.
USING ARC BREAKS
Use any ARC Break to determine that the R2 is wrong. There is no other
reason for an ARC break, no matter what the pc says. The R2 is wrong.
That's the reason for the ARC break.
You use ARC breaks to verify the R2. The pc will not ARC break on right
R2 no matter what provocation exists in the auditing.
ARC Break always equals Wrong Routine 2.
Wrong Item, Item wrong way to in oppose. List Incomplete. These are
what cause ARC breaks, not the auditing. Never forget that.
Never try to cure an R2 ARC break with Mid Ruds or missed W/Hs. Go back
to work on the R2 line-up.
Example: "Your Item is 'A Cat'." Pc says ok, soon begins to chop
auditor. Correct action, "Your Item is not 'A Cat'. I will examine this."
That's the end of the ARC break just like that. Pc doesn't realize the
wrong Item is it. He thought it was the auditor. The auditor now looks over
his list to see if it's wrong source or wrong way to or incomplete and
proceeds accordingly.
The Rule is ALWAYS GO BACK FROM AN ARC BREAK. NEVER UNDERTAKE A BRAND
NEW ACTION such as changing the universe.
New lists do not cure ARC breaks. Only doing the old list right or
finding the right Item cures them.
This is also the dominant rule in case repair: Find the earliest ARC
break and remedy what was being done just before it.
Use ARC breaks to guide your R2. Don't ever Q and A with them or try to
handle with auditing. Never stop the auditing on one. Just correct the R2
fast.
CASE REPAIR
In repairing cases all you do is look over earlier reports until you
find the session where the goals went sour and correct what was done in
that or the immediate earlier session. Very simple. You'll also find the RS
if it has vanished off the case.
Never start new actions on a case that needs repair. Only repair old
ones. It's a screaming auditing goof, a major error to start a new action
on such a case.
DOPE OFF
All dope off and boil off while listing or nulling comes from ordinary
garden variety missed withholds. Pull them rapidly and go on. In R2 you
only pull missed W/Hs when you can't get pc into
session at all or when the pc dopes off. You don't pull missed W/Hs in case
of an ARC break-you correct the R2.
Pc going into apathy is also an ARC break you know. Also propitiation.
NEVER REP AN RS ITEM
Never represent an RSing Item. But NEVER. Don't handle or use "RIs"
that came from representing an RSing Item. Some were gotten this way in
3GAXX. They're wrong. Abandon them fast.
Always test a source you are going to use for a represent list for an
RS. If it RSes don't represent it. Don't oppose it either as it's off some
incomplete list. Find a non-RSing thing to represent instead.
There's another version of this also. A pc asked to extend a list (or
seeing the auditor's paper as the auditor lists) will use Items that RS to
try to get the RSing Item on the list. This is fatal and will increase the
number of RSes on the list and make the pc ill, give him the wrong item and
so on.
When you see a pc doing this tell him or her, "Just answer the auditing
question. Please just answer it. The Item we're looking for probably isn't
even related to any RS gotten so far."
Make the pc answer the auditing question only.
A pc may also seek to package when listing Items, not answer the
auditing question. An educated pc knows that RI (4) must match RI (1). Get
the pc off it. "Just answer the auditing question." And you'll be out of
trouble.
Some pcs have listed 40 pages without once answering the auditing
question.
SELF LISTING
Getting the pc to list out of session as in goals is a poor idea in R2.
Give the pc an Item wrong way to and he'll wrap himself around a
telephone pole out of session.
List R2 processes in session only.
You would have to nul the whole list if it's listed out of session.
Where's the time saved?
NEVER STEER ITEMS
Some eager beavers have started steering the pc to Items while listing,
using the needle flicks.
Never do it.
You get Items that don't belong and all sorts of things.
Just be simple, huh?
Routine 2 is as good as you simply audit simply. So relax and start
clearing.
LRH: dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
15 January-7 February 1963
** 6301C15 SHSBC-230 R2-12 Dead Horses
** 6301C15 SHSBC-231 R2-12 Nevers
** 6301C16 SHSBC-232 TVD-16, TR 0 Demo
** 6301C16 SHSBC-233 TR 0 Lecture
** 6302C07 SHSBC-234 R-3 MX, Part I
** 6302C07 SHSBC-235 R-3 MX, Part II.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 FEBRUARY 1963
Franchise
CenOCon
CURRENT AUDITING
Current Auditing has been unsettled due to the sudden breakthrough on
R3-MX.
What I was looking for was
1. A process that invariably cleared pcs easily;
2. That had very precise and invariable rules;
3. That could be taught by rote; and
4. Would not be subject to change.
This process turned out to be R3-MX. The X at this writing is dropped
as the process has proven itself and it becomes Routine 3-M. The
designation of "M" is simply its consecutive letter in the development
series, but it could stand for "Mary Sue" as she did the actual auditing
under my direction that proved its rules.
The rules of 3-MX were worked out in Routine 2-12 and 2-12A and then by
examining Rocket Reading Item behaviour in 3-MX.
The first thing you should know about 3-M is that it is more precise in
application than any process you have handled. When it says "List the Tone
Arm Action out and then 25 Items more" it means exactly that. (Surges of
the needle don't count in TA action as you couldn't follow them with the TA
and back that fast.) When R3-M says "List 25 Items Beyond the last RR or RS
on a list" it means 25, not 24.
In 3-M it says Rocket Reading Item and that's what it means. And a
Rocket Read is a Rocket Read not a fall.
R3-M is therefore a masterpiece of precision. Do it wrong-not exactly
by the rules-and it becomes a real nightmare. So know it before you do it,
and do what it says only.
In both R2-12A and R3-M an Item can appear anywhere on a source list so
long as 2 Items do not RS or RR. One Item RSing and one RRing also means
list is incomplete.
On the w/w wd goal opp list (the 3-M Source List) you have to make sure
list is complete to 50 Items beyond last RSing or RRing Item and 50 beyond
no TA action point (where TA stops moving). This is true for both 3-M and 2-
12A. You read every RRing Item back to pc from the 3-M Source List (goal
opp) and every RSing Item on the 2-1 2A source list.
A source list is of course the primary list from the goal from which
you get the first RRing RI. In 2-1 2A the source list is what you choose to
get your first list from or List One.
All other lists in 3-M are extended 25 Items beyond the last RR or RS
and the Item is always the last RR on the list-if not you've goofed, didn't
get the TA action out of this or the just prior list. In 2-12A you go 50
Items beyond the last RS and 50 beyond the 1st still TA.
The 8 tests for mass increase, etc, must be done on every Item found in 3-M
and 2- 12A.
The best coverages of R-3M are the HCO Bulletin of Feb 1, 1963,
"Routine 3", and the two hours of lecture of Feb 7, 1963, where it is
covered. HCO Bulletins and other lectures will be forthcoming.
R2-12A
If R3-M emerges so suddenly, then what of Routine 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A?
With the single caution that you must not try to package a small RS and
only use a wide RS (1/3 of a dial or more) as your source list's RI, 2-12A
is very successful just as laid down. It will continue to be taught, and
used. In it you have some very precise Rules. A list is continued 50 Items
beyond the last RS. Never represent an RSing Item. Always carry a wide
RSing RI around to a package of 4. It is not important how you get your
first RI so long as it didn't come from representing an RSing Item. The
last RS on the list opposing an RI is the Right Item always unless you've
goofed. There must not be 2 RSing Items on a list (except List One where
you choose the biggest RS as your first RI). If two appear, your list is
incomplete or you let the pc (as you must never do) Represent an RR or RS
he's heard or seen on the list.
You don't nul in 2-12A (or 3-M), you just read the next to last, then
the last RS or RR Item.
Tough cases, the RS grabbed off List One Issue 3, will change with 2-
12A. Rockslammers sit back and get relaxed. The process is valuable.
Therefore it must be taught and used.
But as R3-M is even easier than 2-12A, it also must be taught in
Academies and used in HGCs.
Valid Processes, then, are
1. The CCHs. 5. Prepchecking.
2. Assists. 6. Problems Intensives.
3. Ruds and Havingness. 7. R2-12A.
4. Pulling Missed W/Hs. 8. R3-M.
Know these and you can crack or handle any case and clear.
So know them. I'll do my best to make all the data available.
LRH:jw.rd L. RON
HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[ R3M and R3N as developments are not included in these volumes. They will
be found on courses to which they apply.]
** 6302C12 SHSBC-236 Routine 3M
** 6302C13 SHSBC-237 TVD-16, Mid Rud. and Hav.
** 6302C13 SHSBC-238 Discussion by LRH of TVD
** 6302C14 SHSBC-239 Routine 3M
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 FEBRUARY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
R2-R3
LISTING RULES
An idiocy of long long lists can creep into Routine 2 and Routine 3.
This is not as harmful as under-listing but it can make pcs pretty green or
black and certainly holds up auditing.
You must realize that "listing to a still Tone Arm" takes several
things for granted:
1. That the auditor has his sensitivity at about 4 (Mark IV about
6) during listing.
2. That the auditor does not adjust the TA for surges (cognitions,
etc).
3. That the TA is adjusted only when it has to be to get the
needle into a readable position.
4. That the pc is answering the auditing question and not varying
it or running havingness on himself.
5. That the rudiments are reasonably in, particularly SUPPRESS,
INVALIDATE, PROTEST and DECIDE.
6. That the pc is capable of being in session.
7. That the pc isn't fiddling with the cans, yawning, stretching,
etc.
In other words, if an auditor has his pc under calm control the TA rule
applies. As the control of the pc diminishes the TA rule grows less
workable.
But even so all is not lost.
TA shifts because of body motion, yawning, asking questions, and
particularly because of PROTESTS! do not count in reading TA position. The
TA position that must be steady is for the list. So if you read it "TA
position for the list must be motionless" you have it absolutely correct.
The TA will also read for other attention positions such as on the auditor,
on the room, on the body. The pc shifts his attention from the list and you
get TA motion. The thing we want to know is: did the TA go right back to
List Position when the pc put his attention back on the List. Or, with the
pc's attention on the list, did the TA now move. If so, that's TA motion
for the list and the list is incomplete.
It's really very easy even if the pc is out of session, to find a
motionless TA on the list. Understand this and you'll stop endless listing.
"TA action out" is, however, not the first rule of a complete list.
The rules of a complete list for R2 or R3 are:
1. TWO ITEMS (RR and RS) ARE NOT FIRING WHEN THE LIST RR AND RS
ITEMS ARE READ BACK TO THE PC.
2. ONLY ONE ITEM RSes or RRs ON THE LIST WHEN RRs AND RSs NOTED
DURING LISTING ARE READ BACK TO THE PC. THE OTHERS DO NOT READ.
3. THE LIST HAS THE RELIABLE ITEM ON IT.
In Routine 2 these Rules apply:
4. ON A COMPLETED R2 SOURCE LIST, ONE RSing ITEM ONLY WILL RS WHEN
READ BACK TO THE PC.
5. ON A COMPLETED R2 LIST TAKEN BY OPPOSING (EITHER WAY) A
ROCKSLAMMING ITEM, THE RELIABLE ITEM WILL BE THE LAST ROCKSLAMMING
ITEM ON THE LIST. IF IT IS NOT, THE ITEM BEING OPPOSED IS WRONG OR
THE OPPOSITION WORDING IS WRONG WAY TO OR THE LIST IS INCOMPLETE.
In Routine 3 these Rules apply:
7. ON A COMPLETED R3 SOURCE LIST, ONE ROCKET READING ITEM ONLY
WILL RR WHEN READ BACK TO THE PC. NO RS OR OTHER RR ON THE LIST
SHOULD NOW READ.
8. ON A COMPLETED R3 LIST TAKEN BY OPPOSING (EITHER WAY) A
ROCKSLAMMING ITEM, THE RELIABLE ITEM WILL BE THE LAST ROCKET
READING ITEM ON THE LIST. IF IT IS NOT, THE ITEM BEING OPPOSED IS
WRONG OR THE OPPOSITION WORDING IS WRONG WAY TO OR THE LIST IS
INCOMPLETE.
9. AN ITEM OR GOAL WHICH WAS SEEN TO ROCKET READ WHEN BEING
WRITTEN DOWN BUT WHICH RSes WHEN READ BACK TO THE PC WILL ROCKET
READ AGAIN IF GIVEN A BRIEF BIG MID RUDS PREPCHECK.
The above are the rules which must apply.
As some variability can result in various auditors' interpretation of a
"still TA" and in how good a session the auditor can run, the TA rule is
secondary. It still applies, it is still valid. But a pc on PROTEST! varies
his TA all over the place and an auditor that can't handle a pc with a few
deft mid ruds or get his question answered will get TA action when the list
is flat. When you get the hang of it you will see that listing to a
motionless TA is valid, but that of course is in an auditing session.
On one of these overlong lists, you can tell if it's overlong by seeing
if you have gone 50 Items (25 Items opposing RR RIs) past the last RS or
RR, making sure that you don't get two Items on the list that fire, and
thus find your Reliable Item.
It's finding RIs that counts, not how long can we list.
Also, avoid buying a pc's "hard sell" on an Item or condition. If it
follows the above rules buy it. If not, just ack and go on. Auditors with
low sales resistance need not apply. Often the pc says "It's a terminal"
when it's an Oppterm. Apply the tests and do a decent test list before you
make up your mind. Pcs don't really know-RIs have an aberrative value you
know-so why buy a dramatized sales talk. The auditor is necessary because
an auditor isn't in the RI and can think. So an auditor who buys a sales
talk isn't an auditor. Get it?
Audit R2 and R3 by the rules. If the rules don't seem to apply, take a
walk and think over why. Don't just keep on in haggard hope.
LRH:gl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright (� 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6302C19 SHSBC-240 Rundown on Processes
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 FEBRUARY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2 & 3 MODEL SESSION
Here is a needed revision of Goal Finder's Model Session which is
canceled herewith.
The changes are:
1. Omitting Life or Livingness Goals completely.
2. Running general O/W until PC comes back up to PRESENT TIME and not
just until needle is smooth.
3. Added-Run "Since the last time I audited you" Mid Ruds if TA is in a
higher position from the last session pc had.
4. Put Havingness after goals or gains for the session.
5. Added a note that suppress is always done repetitively, as is the
Random Rud.
SESSION PRELIMINARIES
All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this
order.
1. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair.
2. Clear the Auditing room with "Is it all right to audit in this room?"
(not metered)
3. Can squeeze "Squeeze the cans, please." And note that pc registers,
by the squeeze on the meter, and note the level of the pc's havingness.
(Don't run hav here. )
4. Go into the session start.
ROUTINE 2 & 3 MODEL SESSION
Where the pc has been well Prepchecked and is well under auditor
control, an Auditor in a Routine 2 or Routine 3 session may omit rudiments
in Model Session, using only goals for session, and havingness, goals and
gains at end and general O/W, Mid Ruds and Random Ruds where needed in the
session. This salvages about an hour's auditing time per day. Start and end
of session commands are used, just no rudiments; general O/W may be found
necessary on some pcs at session start in lieu of rudiments to get a
cleaner needle.
This does not apply to Rudiments and Havingness Sessions or Prepcheck
Sessions and Problems Intensives.
For a pc who is well smoothed out by staff auditors, then, and who is
well under the goal finder's control, the following may be used,
particularly with a Mark V Meter.
START OF SESSION:
Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?
START OF SESSION. (Tone 40)
Has this session started for you? If pc says, "No," say again, "START
OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No,"
say, "We will cover it in a moment."
RUDIMENTS:
What goals would you like to set for this session?
Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they
tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his
attention out of the session.
At this point in the session there are two actions which could be
undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments
using "Since the last time I audited you".
One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the
beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the
latter being simply another indication of the pc's being upset or ARC
broken, but those symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn't
started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he
wanted to say before the auditor started the session.
RUNNING O/W:
If it is alright with you, I am going to run a short, general process.
The process is: "What have you done?" "What have you withheld?"
(The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and
the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.)
Where are you now on the time track?
If it is alright with you, I will continue this process until you are
close to present time and then end this process. (After each command,
ask, "When?")
That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or
say before I end this process?
End of process.
RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS:
One would use the Middle Rudiments with, "Since the last time I audited
you", if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position
than it was at the end of the last session.
Since the last time I audited you has anything been suppressed? (This
is always done by the repetitive system.)
Since the last time I audited you, has anything been invalidated? Since
the last time I audited you, has anything been suggested?
Since the last time I audited you, is there anything you failed to
reveal?
Since the last time I audited you, is there anything you have been
careful of? (These latter four rudiments are done by fast check.)
The "In this session" Mid Ruds can be used to straighten up a session
that has completely gone out of the Auditor's control, after he has gotten
in the Random Rudiment. "On this list" Mid Ruds, particularly with
suppressed or invalidated can be used to get a pc to continue listing.
RUNNING THE RANDOM RUDIMENT:
In this session have I missed a withhold on you? In this session is
there anything I failed to find out about you?
In this session have you thought, said, or done anything I failed to
find out? In this session have I nearly found out something about you?
Any of the above versions may be used. The Random Rudiment is always
run repetitively.
END OF SESSION:
Is it alright with you if we end off ......now? Is there anything you
would care to ask or say before I do so?
End of ........
If the pc from the Auditor's observation is very agitated or upset, the
Auditor would run General O/W as given above.
If the session has been an extremely difficult session with the pc
having been ARC broken badly and frequently, one would get in the "In this
session" Mid Ruds in order to clean up the auditing, even though the pc may
now be alright.
Have you made any part of your goals for this session?
Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to
mention?
(After adjusting the meter) Please squeeze the cans.
(If the squeeze test was not alright, the Auditor would run the pc's
Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.)
Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this
session? Is it alright with you if I end this session now?
Here it is: END OF SESSION (Tone 40). Has this session ended for you?
(If the pc says, "No," repeat, "END OF SESSION." If the session still
has not ended, say, "You will be getting more auditing. END OF
SESSION.") "Tell me I am no longer auditing you."
Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends
to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a
degree out of the session.
(Bulletin done by Mary Sue Hubbard after we worked it out)
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.bh
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
20-28 February 1963
** 6302C20 SHSBC-241 Talk on TV Demo-Finding RRs
** 6302C21 SHSBC-242 R-2 and R-3 Current Auditing Rundown
** 6302C26 SHSBC-243 R-3M Current Rundown by Steps
6302C27 SHSBC-246 TVD-17 Case Repair (Aud: LRH)
6302C27 SHSBC-246A TVD-17A Case Repair (Aud: LRH)
6302C28 SHSBC-244 Goals Problems Mass
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 FEBRUARY AD13
CenOCon
URGENT
GOALS CHECK
Issue as Secretarial Executive Director:
All Goals and Reliable Items found on students, staff or HGC pcs must
be checked out and seen to rocket read by a qualified executive or staff
Class IV before being run.
Only Routine 3M is permitted as a clearing procedure and exactly as
given in bulletins and tapes.
All Clears must be checked out by a qualified executive before being
pronounced Clear by the Organization or reported to me as such.
No auditor may be permitted to audit staff members or HGC pcs or
students who is not a regular staff member.
No auditor may use Routine Three unless qualified by the Staff Training
Officer or the Academy.
No auditors not staff members may frequent the premises of the
Organization for the purposes of obtaining private preclears.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jw.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MARCH 1963
Central Orgs
URGENT
ROUTINE 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A
Cease to use Routine 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A in the HGC and Academy and on
staff clearing except as follows:
Cases that RS on List One and whose goal cannot be found.
Cases that need R2- 10, 2-12 or 2-12A completed or repaired.
Why?
3M suddenly emerged and is simpler than R2-10, 2-12 or 2-12A.
An auditor can turn off somebody's RS and RR by using Routine 2-10, 2-
12 and 2-12A wrongly, thus making it harder to find the goal and do 3M.
Routine 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A can help find a goal. It can also submerge
a goal when packages are not completed.
R2-10, 2-12, 2-12A Case Repair consists of completing any obvious
package from Existing RIs.
3M, I repeat, emerged after Routine 2 and is easier to teach and use.
Do not leave a Routine 2 package of 4 from already found RIs incomplete
because of this HCO Bulletin. Complete it. Avoid Long, Protested Listing as
only this can mess up a pc's RR or RS.
Routine 2-12 may be taught in an Academy but not used on students'
cases.
I am working on easily done Routine 2-GX which is a Goal Finding
Routine consisting of the nearly exact pattern of a Problems Intensive but
asking a different question, which adds up to listing times in the pc's
life when his purpose was baulked and assessing and running as in a
Problems Intensive.
More goals are being delivered by ordinary Problems Intensives than by
Routine 2- 12.
R2-12 is a highly successful process but fails in some hands.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH gl.bh
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6303C05 SHSBC-245 R-2 and R-3 Urgent Data
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MARCH AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise
USE OF THE BIG MIDDLE RUDIMENTS
The Big Mid Ruds can be used in the following places:
At the start of any session. Examples:
"Since the last time I audited you_________"
"Since the last time you were audited_________"
"Since you decided to be audited_________"
In or at the end of any session. Example:
"In this session_________"
On a list. Examples:
"On this list_________"
"On (say list question)_________"
On a goal or item. Example:
"On (say goal or item)_________"
Never say
"On the goal, to catch catfish_________" or
"On the item, a catfish_________"
Say simply the goal itself or the item itself.
ORDER OF BUTTONS
Here is the correct wording and order of use for the Big Mid Ruds.
" has anything been suppressed?"
" is there anything you have been careful of?"
"_________is there anything you have failed to reveal?"
"_________has anything been invalidated?"
"_________has anything been suggested?"
"_________has any mistake been made?"
"_________is there anything you have been anxious about?"
"_________has anything been protested?"
"_________has anything been decided?"
In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to
Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the
meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on
the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast
Rud checking until it is clean.
The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds.
LRH:dr.bh
Copyright �1963 L. RON
HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MARCH 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise URGENT
ROUTINE 2-10 2-12 2-12A
(Also applies to Routine 3-M)
VANISHED RS OR RR
A preclear whose Items while listing or whose Items when found
Rockslam, can be said to be "capable of Rocket Reading or Rockslamming".
If no RRs or RSes are seen on a preclear's list or any list while
listing and also if no Items RS when called back, the preclear can be said
to be "incapable of Rocket Reading or Rockslamming".
Some preclears are incapable of producing an RS or RR except on the
first GPM goal when found. No matter how much Item listing is done, no
matter from what source, no RR or RS is seen while listing and none is
found when the list is complete. No technique to turn on a pc's RS or RR
will ever be found except one: Find the pc's goal for the 1st GPM.
WHAT MAKES RRs & RSes VANISH
The thing which turns off a pc's RR or RS is TOO MANY RELIABLE ITEMS
FOUND WITHOUT FINDING THE PC'S GOAL.
This can be done by life or by Auditing. As it can be done by life,
some raw meat pcs will not RR or RS. It can be surmised that they have been
set about in life by too many Reliable Items in full view. For instance a
pc has an RI, FATHER, an RI, POLITICIAN, an RI, CITY. His father is
politician who insists on living in a city. These and others in his bank,
although undisclosed, are yet restimulated, and this pc will not be seen to
RS or RR on listing, and no RS or RR is likely to be seen even if an actual
RI is found.
There is no use here for a more forceful way to get RIs. The rules are
very plain, unvaried and uncompromising:
RULE. WHEN A PC'S RS OR RR IS OFF, STOP TRYING TO FIND MORE RIs.
No matter if you could find them, the RR or RS would just go more
thoroughly off if you did.
RULE: FINDING MORE RIs WILL NOT TURN AN RR OR RS BACK ON.
There is a danger signal in this. The pc's RR or RS starts getting
smaller, Item by Item, RI by RI, get off fast. Let the last RI be the last
one looked for. If just one more is found, bang, no RR or RS on this pc no
matter what is "found" in the way of RIs.
RULE: COMPLETING R2 OR R3 PACKAGE WILL NOT TURN ON THE RR OR RS.
However don't let the pc ARC Break on an incomplete list by starting
one.
It may be possible to find one more RI that gives a feeble slam, but
then you've had it.
However the picture is not all black. Pcs who were "incapable of RR or
RS" have been subjected to 26 lists after with no RR or RS seen and still
have recovered.
RESTORING THE RR & RS
The Rockslam and Rocket Read are brothers. A pc will Rockslam and yet
not Rocket Read because the Rocket Read is the frailer brother. A pc going
down hill toward no RR or RS first loses his RR. It now shows only as an
RS. Then the RS vanishes too.
You can't Prepcheck an RS into an RR on some pcs if the pc is on the
way down toward no RR or RS. Ordinarily, however, a lot of RSes can be
Prepchecked into RRing if there is an RR there to fire.
An RR as it expires may become an RS.
The ability to RR, then, goes out first. There is only one thing that
restores the pc's ability to RR or RS.
RULE: THE ONLY THING THAT WILL RESTORE THE ABILITY OF A PC TO RR OR RS
IS TO FIND THE PC'S FIRST (or next) GPM GOAL.
Naturally it is far easier to find a Rocket Read on a goal before the
pc loses his ability to Rocket Read. It is far from impossible however to
find a goal on a pc that is "incapable of RRing or RSing" and far from
impossible to get it to RR by Prepcheck as the pc will always RR again on
the right goal. Just listing goals eases the condition of "no RR or RS".
And once an RR or RS that has been shut off is found again on the goal, the
pc's RR or RS is "on again" on everything.
On some pcs, the goal is so charged that you will find an immediate
Rocket Firing Blow Down of the TA. You get long Rocket Reads one after
another as the pc realizes it is the goal. This is particularly true on
some pcs who have had a lot of RIs found. In such a case you no more find
the goal and Prepcheck it than you have to find another for the next GPM.
ALL ITEMS COUNT
ANY ITEM found by 3DXX, 3GA, 3GAXX, or even earlier "for running
processes on" are ALL part of the GPM and must be put on the pc's Line
Plot. It doesn't matter how they were found or by whom, or if they were
checked out or not. They belong on the Line Plot and can be used to find
goals.
RULE: PUT ANY ITEM EVER FOUND ON THE PC BY ANY PROCESS ON THE LlNE
PLOT. EVERY ONE WILL ADD UP TO A GOAL.
Therefore even "bad Items", Items that were found from representing
RSing Items, backwards oppose Items, all belong on the Line Plot. It is
understood here that there was some kind of an assessment. Whatever was
found by any kind of an assessment since 1954 belongs on the Line Plot and
can be used to help find goals.
FOUR RIs
In R2- 10, 2-12 and 2-12A you are allowed only four RIs before the pc's
goal must be found.
If the RS or RR is seen to get smaller from one Item to the next,
abandon 2-12 and begin 3-M goal finding at once. When you find the pc's
goal, and when you are adding up and Prepchecking the first GPM, you will
discover that everything found on the pc for the last nine years was part
of his first or another GPM. So, old auditing paid off!
In view of this, on old pcs, it's safest to go for the goal as your
first auditing action. You can use any Item ever found to help get that
goal.
On raw meat pcs get a couple RIs if you can by R2-12 and use that to
help find the goal. With luck one will even RR. But find the goal before
opposing it.
SUMMARY
This discovery of what monitors the RS and RR of a pc is a very
important one. I've worked ceaselessly on this since the first of the year
and finally isolated it.
Even a 3rd goal clear isn't immune to losing his RS and RR if you keep
finding scores of Items with no goal or a wrong goal.
So treat the RS and RR with respect when found, and find the pc's goal
when he won't RS or RR and you've got it made. You don't need a better
meter. Only the pc's goal.
This rules out unlimited R2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A on a pc. But these give
you the two or four RIs necessary for easy goal finding so R2 is of value
after all!
And I've a Prepcheck coming up that helps loosen up the pc's goal, so
we're still all right.
LRH:dr.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 MARCH 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise URGENT
ROUTINE 2-ROUTINE 3
ARC BREAKS, HANDLING OF
(HCO Secs: Check this out thoroughly on all students and staff. D of T:
Use this drill early in Practical, add to all Check Sheets.)
Some day you will be awfully glad you read and learned this HCO
Bulletin.
The only things that can ruin the future of R2 and R3 are:
1. ARC Breaks because of bad R2 and R3; and
2. The Sad Effect.
THE ARC BREAK
There is nothing more nerve-racking to an auditor than an R2 or R3 ARC
Break. They are not like other ARC Breaks from a common missed withhold.
They are nerve-shattering and far reaching in consequence.
If you can't handle an R2 or R3 ARC Break you have no business using
the techniques as you'll wrap more than one pc around a telephone pole. The
only real damage R2 and R3 can do to a case is when one fails to handle an
R2 or R3 ARC Break. Good R2 or R3 repairs bad R2 or R3, but one sometimes
has to be awfully clever to repair a case once the auditor has let an ARC
Break go by.
Indeed, so important is the ARC Break in R2 and R3 that it is actually
used as one means of testing the correctness of the R2 or R3.
CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS
The untried auditor is always sure the R2 or R3 ARC Break happens
because of auditing blunders (Mid Ruds, etc), failure to pull ordinary
missed withholds or auditor auditing goofs. This is not true.
The truth is that R2 and R3 ARC Breaks are caused by a mistake in
Goals, Items or GPMs, and that's the whole cause.
The pc, however, unable to grasp this, turns his reasoning upon the
auditor and blames the auditing. Therefore, this rule must be thoroughly
learned and experienced by the auditor before he or she is "safe" in
auditing R2 and R3.
ARC BREAK RULE
IN R2 AND R3 WHEN THE PC CRITICIZES OR ATTACKS THE AUDITOR OR GOES INTO
GRIEF OR APATHY, AN R2 OR R3 ERROR HAS JUST OCCURRED. THE AUDITOR MUST
IGNORE THE PC'S STATEMENTS AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE ARC BREAK AND QUICKLY
REMEDY THE R2 OR R3 AND DO NOTHING ELSE.
There are no exceptions to this rule in R2 and R3. The auditor, having
goofed in some other way, is liable to see reason in what the pc is saying,
do something like missed withholds or Mid Ruds and drive the ARC Break into
heights that can make the pc much more upset.
MID RUD RULE
IN AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK, MISSED WITHHOLDS AND MID RUDS ARE USED, IF AT
ALL, ONLY AFTER THE ARC BREAK HAS BEEN HEALED BY CORRECTING THE R2 AND R3.
If an auditor tries to get in his Mid Ruds or pull missed withholds in
the face of an ARC Break in an R2 or R3 session the pc is likely to be
driven down to the Sad Effect which is harder to salvage.
THE SAD EFFECT
We could call this Tearaculi Apathia Magnus and everyone would be in
great awe of it. But I see no reason to follow the Latinated nonsense of
yesterday's failured sciences. Call it something simple and the auditor
will feel he can do something about it and even the pc will cheer up a bit.
So it's "the Sad Effect".
This is a state of great sadness, apathy, misery and desire for suicide
and death.
I have been on the trail of the causes of this condition for about 20
years. Like nearly everything else in Scientology this is a new high point
in achievement. We have the highest state, OT, and we have the lowest
states of being recognized and know the roads to them.
RULE
NEGLECT OR OVERWHELM AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK (PC ANGER OR ANTAGONISM) AND
YOU WILL CAUSE THE PC TO DROP INTO THE SAD EFFECT.
THE SAD EFFECT IS CAUSED BY NEGLECTING OR OVERWHELMING AN R2 OR R3 ARC
BREAK AND THE STATE WILL CONTINUE UNTIL REMEDIED BY CORRECTING THE R2 OR
R3.
ALL PCS WHO ARE SAD, HOPELESS, ETC HAVE HAD THEIR R2 OR R3 MISHANDLED
BY LIFE OR AUDITING.
ARC BREAK CAUSE RULE
ALL R2 OR R3 ARC BREAKS STEM FROM WRONG ITEMS OR GOALS, INCOMPLETE
LISTS, WRONG WAY TO OPPOSE OR NO AUDITING.
ALL THESE ARE IN ESSENCE MISSED WITHHOLDS OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE
MAGNITUDE AND THEREFORE CAUSE ARC BREAKS OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE
MAGNITUDE.
Bad auditing only serves to key in an existing R2 or R3 Error.
In actual fact, a missed withhold can amount to a whole section of the
GPM (goal error or leaving the GPM section before it is clean), a wrong
goal, a wrong Item, a wrong way to Item or, of lesser degree, not finding
an Item.
THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL R2 R3 ARC BREAKS CONSISTS OF A MISSED OR
WRONGLY DESIGNATED GPM, GOAL OR RELIABLE ITEM. THERE ARE NO OTHER SOURCES
OF R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK.
Bad sessioning, poor auditing, ordinary life missed withholds are only
contributive to R2 and R3 ARC Breaks and are incapable of doing more than
keying in and intensifying the magnitude of the ARC Break which has already
been caused by errors in R2 and R3.
THE FIFTEEN PRINCIPAL CAUSES
The fifteen principal causes of ARC Break in R2 and R3 are:
1. Failure to complete a list;
2. By-passing an Item;
3. Giving the pc a wrong Item;
3a. Opposing an Item wrong way to;
4. Giving the pc an Item with altered wording;
5. Giving the pc no Item;
6. Failure to complete a goals list;
7. By-passing the pc's goal;
8. Giving the pc a wrong goal;
9. Giving the pc a goal with altered wording;
10. Giving the pc no goal;
11. Failure to complete a GPM before going to the next;
12. By-passing a GPM;
13. Getting the pc into the wrong GPM;
14. Going too far into a GPM without finding a goal;
15. No auditing.
The fifteen apply to both R2 and R3, all of them.
They can be made up into an assessment list (shortly to be issued),
which list, assessed by elimination, will give you the exact cause of the
ARC Break (which I think is pretty clever of me) and permit you to heal it
rapidly. While you will feel on occasion that the assessment result is no
more easily interpreted then fortune telling, you will find that it is
always right. It spots the missed R2-R3 missed withhold. If it comes up "By-
Passed Item" you'll have a scramble trying to find it, but you at least
know why the pc ARC Broke and the pc will permit you to look (even while
screaming at you).
THE CYCLE OF THE ARC BREAK
STAGE ONE:
The ARC Break starts always in the same way. The pc finds something
wrong with the auditor, the subject, or tools of auditing or the auditing
room. He does this in varying intensity, ARC Break to ARC Break.
STAGE TWO:
This is followed by misemotion, also directed at the auditor, subject,
tools or room.
STAGE THREE:
If the auditor continues on with auditing the pc will drop into grief,
sadness or apathy.
This is an inevitable cycle and may be followed by the pc with greater
or lesser intensity of emotion, or loudness or lack of response.
A skilled auditor will recognize and stop it at Stage One above. It is
sometimes not possible to stop the cycle because it enters the stages and
completes them too swiftly, but it must be cared for, and no further R2 or
R3 may be done until the R2 or R3 is corrected.
THE AUDITOR'S VIEW
The auditor must realize that the ARC Break is caused by an error which
has just occurred-within seconds or minutes, and must not go back a half a
dozen sessions unless the pc has been pretty upset all along. Something has
just happened, usually, that is wrong R2 or R3.
The auditor must stop all forward action and must not do anything
except correct what has already happened. Do not continue on, do not get in
Mid Ruds, do not pull missed withholds or do anything else but correct the
R2 and R3. Do not do new lists or new approaches or new actions until the
old action is straightened up.
To continue is to produce the Sad Effect. If the pc is already in the
Sad Effect at session start, treat it as an ARC Break with the Drill given.
The pc does not realize that anything has been missed. He or she thinks
it's the auditor, the subject or the tools and will target only these. The
fact of the ARC Break must be noted and the substance of the criticism must
be ignored by the auditor.
If the pc knew what had been missed there would be no ARC Break. The
missed withhold of the Item or whatever is not only missed by the auditor
but by the pc. The pc won't ever spot it, left on his own. It's up to the
auditor.
The auditor only must make up his or her mind as to what's wrong. The
directions of the pc (even a skilled Scientologist as a pc) are nearly
always wrong. The auditor is there to listen and compute. As it's the pc's
bank, the pc can't compute on his or her own case. Taking the pc's
directions will always involve and prolong the ARC Break. What really
caused it will be occluded to the pc. Don't always do something different
than what the pc says. By averages the pc might have accidentally hit on
it. Just do what is necessary to straighten out the R2 and R3. Just don't
depend on the pc to tell you. Know your R2 and R3. You, the auditor, are
the only one present who can think clearly. That's what you're for.
THE D OF P'S VIEW
The D of P has a different view of an ARC Break. It is by sessions
according to auditors' reports.
To get a case going again that has gone into Stage Three, examine
yesterday's reports. Look for a change in pc's goals and gains and correct
the session before the one in which they changed.
When an auditing supervisor becomes an auditor he or she carries this habit
forward into auditing and presented with an ARC Breaking pc in session,
tends to look to yesterday. But in a session, the ARC Breaking action
usually occurs only seconds or minutes before the ARC Break. Look there
when auditing.
THE DRILL
This drill is to be used in all Practical Sections before the student
is turned loose on R2 or R3.
Designation: R2 and R3 Drill One.
Purpose: To prevent errors in R2 and R3 and to prevent upsets in the
pc's case.
Theory: The effort of a pc at the start of an ARC Break is to stop the
auditor. The pc's effort is aimed at the auditor's skill, person, the
subject, auditing tools or the room. The comments are critical, whether
jocular or misemotional. When this effort fails to stop the auditor, and
the auditor presses on with auditing, the pc is overwhelmed and goes
rapidly down tone scale. In a severe R2 or R3 ARC Break the pc will stay
down scale for minutes, hours, days, weeks or months until the ARC Break is
repaired by correcting the R2 or R3 error made immediately before the ARC
Break. The correct action is to prevent all possibility of the auditor
becoming too enturbulated to think, prevent all engagement in refutation of
the pc's accusations, give the auditor time and calm to correct the R2 or
R3, test the correction by seeing if it stops the ARC Break, and only then
re-commence the session. The key is that even the most startled auditor,
seeing an ARC Break begin, can associate it with the word "Break".
The drill is always used in actual sessions even when the auditor
thinks he knows the reason for it.
Drill:
Auditor: List the Items in this room.
Coach: Privately makes up his mind which of the ARC Break points is
wrong. Does auditing command briefly and then unexpectedly criticizes (with
greater or lesser violence) auditor, room, tools, subject or self or drops
into simulated tears or apathy.
Auditor: Thank you. We will now take a short break. (Gathers papers and
leaves room. Shuffles papers and returns into room.)
Auditor: I would like to do a short assessment on you.
(Auditor does actual E-Meter assessment from a standard HCO Bulletin
question list which will be provided from time to time, based on the
Principal Causes of R2-R3 ARC Breaks. Finds the one the coach was hiding by
actual meter reaction.)
Auditor: I find we have (gives cause found) and we will now locate it.
Is that all right with you?
Coach: Okay.
Auditor: The session is resumed.
Coach: That's it.
In actual practice the auditor would have examined the papers of the pc
to come to some conclusion about the case in private and seen what was
wrong or seen the D of P or somebody else for help. And then would have
confirmed it by assessment.
History: Developed at Saint Hill by L. Ron Hubbard in March AD 13, to
prevent severe upsets in R2 and R3.
LRH:gl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6303C07 SHSBC-247 When Faced with the Unusual, Do the Usual
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 18 MARCH 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
R2-R3
IMPORTANT DATA
DON'T FORCE THE PC
Never force a pc to list when doing R2- 12 or 3-M, especially 3-M.
If the pc has difficulty listing, three things may be wrong:
1. The Item being listed is wrong way to;
2. It may be a Wrong Item (even from another GPM);
3. It may be an Item from some other GPM.
A pc actually can't help but list easily if it's the right Item that
the list is coming from.
In the usual case, listing from a right Item requires only the most
occasional giving of the auditing question by the auditor. Once at the
start of the list, once after each interruption to check something.
Between, the pc just gives Items in a steady flow. Occasionally the pc asks
for the question.
If the auditor has to give a question for each Item he gets, Man
there's one of the above 3 wrong.
WRONG WAY TO
Mass moves in on a wrong way to list question. It's being given, "Who
or what would loud voices oppose" and it should be "Who or what would
oppose loud voices".
If it's wrong: (1) the mass moves in; (2) the pc starts to discolor;
(3) the pc has to continuously repeat the question to himself; (4) the pc
can't wrap his mind around the question; (5) the pc discolors or darkens;
(6) the tone arm goes unreasonably high (above 5 in some cases); (7) the pc
may ARC Break.
If in the presence of such symptoms the auditor forces the pc to go on
listing, real trouble can then develop, as the mass caves in on the body.
BODY VS THETAN
To understand this trouble we have to review what we have known for
years about bodies and thetans. The thetan is not the body.
The bank belongs to the thetan, not to the body.
You are running a thetan and his bank while helped and hindered by the
body.
The body helps the auditor because it provides a communication relay to
a thetan who cannot yet speak, hear or act without a body. The E-Meter cans
are held by the body's hands, the body's voice box magnifies the thetan's
speech and body lips, larynx, etc, add diction. The ears magnify the
auditor's voice. The body relays various senses and somatics to the thetan.
The body discolors when mass from the bank is brought in on it.
Further, because he is in a body you can tell if the pc is sitting in
the pc's chair (joke).
The body hinders the auditor by being fragile.
Life, long before auditing, has been keying the thetan's masses in on
this body.
In auditing, masses are released off the body and out of the thetan's bank.
The body, accustomed after all to masses keying in on it in life, can
still survive a lot of bad auditing. But why?
As you go earlier and earlier in the bank the "power" of the thetan's
mock-ups increases. Earlier on the track the thetan was more powerful and
made more formidable mock-ups.
Thus the earlier the GPM you are addressing (certainly beyond the 3rd),
the more care you have to use not to pull masses in on the body, which is
to say the more accurate you have to be.
Now, as the thetan, by clearing GPMs, becomes more and more able to
handle and recognize goals and Items, the auditor tends to more and more
abandon the safety points of R3-M. These are, testing the goal, making the
oppterm-terminal test for each RI, watching the tendency of the needle to
tighten, watching for pc's darkening. Abandoning these, the auditor tends
to race on, finding more GPMs, goals and RIs, cleaning up nothing behind
him. This is wrong.
Test the goal after every RI you find; test every RI you find for
terminal or oppterm; really stay alert for the tightening needle and high
TA that shows an error; watch carefully for pc darkening. The more advanced
the GPM, the more careful you have to be of the body.
Don't go plunging on after an ARC Break. Find why by the ARC Break
assessment and straighten it up.
When you complete a GPM, go about 2 Items deep into the next one, find
its goal and then go back and put in the BMRs on every Item in the former
line plot. and give the gone goal an 18 button prepcheck. Only then,
proceed on into the next GPM whose goal has been found.
Items get easier to find as you advance into new GPMs, lists get
shorter, but the RIs are harder and harder on the body when done wrong.
So be sure and then proceed.
And if the pc won't list for any reason (even his own balkiness) find
out what's wrong before the current action and be sure that was it before
proceeding. It's easier to lose session time in looking for former errors
than in trying to revive a pc or heal a screaming ARC Break.
Even the most accurate auditing gives the pc heavy somatics. That's ok.
Just don't force the pc beyond where he can easily go. The real howling ARC
Breaks only come after you have forced the pc onward after something has
gone wrong.
If you have howling ARC Breaks with a pc you have forced the pc into a
channel where the pc cannot easily go.
WRONG ITEM
Listing a completely wrong Item (which did not fire or which did) can
happen in a number of ways:
If you list an RI wrong way to you will get a high TA and fewer RRs on
the list. Further, you may just run out of RRs on the next list or one or
two lists down.
And, a real catastrophe, you can find, on a wrong way oppose, an Item
out of an adjacent GPM for which you have no found goal. The Item you find
won't fit the goal of the GPM you are supposed to be running. Best thing to
do is abandon it (but put on the plot) and go back and find which RI behind
you was wrong way oppose (it will tick or fire), put in the BMRs on it and
list it the other way to.
On later GPMs the pc will easily overlist and list beyond the one you
are trying for and get the next in line. The way to tell is test the
listing question for clean every five Items the pc gives. The moment it's
clean, stop listing.
For instance, in the 4th GPM, you are listing "Somebody Who Can't Whisper"
(Line plot HCO Bulletin of March 13) and you overlist. You will get "Loud
Voices" on the list but you will find "A Whisperer" as the last RRing Item
which will read. Then, if you omit the term-oppterm test and assume "A
Whisperer" is an oppterm, you will do a wrong way oppose and may get into
another GPM entirely.
However, especially after BMR on it, "A Whisperer", wrong way opposed,
will now fire again with an RR.
But the pc still ARC Breaks. Why? You overshot on the "Somebody Who
Can't Whisper" oppose list and you have a by-passed RI, "Loud Voices".
BMR the RRs earlier on the "Somebody Who Can't Whisper" oppose list and
you'll find "Loud Voices" probably fires now. Or do it by pc's recognition
(but the Item recognized has to fire with an RR). Or when you do "A
Whisperer" right way oppose, you'll also get "Loud Voices".
Auditing on 3-M is like threading through a mine field with the pc
ready to explode if you stray.
Experience will let you relax.
TRAVELLING RR
In Listing the RR travels down the list. It comes from the goal charge.
Therefore it can travel. You can sometimes bring it back up a list with
enough BMR to an earlier RR seen on listing.
The most weird thing in 3-M is the Goal as an RI behaviour (on Mar 13
HCO Bulletin, "To Scream" as an RI, bottom of plot, page 2).
As you list it, as an RI in its proper sequence on the plot, not as a
goal oppose, it behaves as an RI oppose list, not as a source list.
On it the pc will put, usually, the goal of the next GPM. On it will
usually be found, as the last RR Item on the list, "Happy People". But the
goal of the next GPM on that list will not RR when said to pc! Not until
you take all the goals off the RI oppose list and nul them as a goals list.
Then the goal of the next GPM will fire and prove out.
In short, only the last RR seen on nulling on an RI oppose list, will
fire with an RR.
This does not mean the remaining Items seen to RR while listing are not
RIs in their own right. It only means that on any list, the RR travels to
the last RRing Item seen on listing when the list is complete.
Items which RRed on listing will not fire as part of the list but,
taken off the list and known by the pc to be off the list and called as
themselves will RR.
When you get a pc into the 5th GPM this becomes very invariable and
gets vastly in your road, as you can by-pass the next RI you should get and
find the one after that, or you can lose the next GPM's goal as it doesn't
RR on the RI oppose list from the last goal while still on that list.
It's okay if you know it can happen. It will help you cure an ailing
line plot or goals list in a hurry.
RRs travel on 3-M lists down to the last RR. And if it has travelled,
the earlier RRs (Items or Goals on an RI List) seen on listing will not RR
until they have been taken off that list and are called in their own right.
WRONG WORDING
Always be sure you have the right wording for an Item or a goal.
A slightly wrong wording for a goal will cause it to RS and fizzle out.
Get the pc to change the wording on it and it may RR on and on.
If a pc ARC Breaks on a goals list, you had and passed the goal or you
had the goal with a slightly wrong wording. The pc still ARC Breaks on a
wrong wording as it's a missed withhold.
Pcs usually put down varied wordings on goals lists. Encourage it, even
though it's representing an RRing Item. If a goal fires, RSes, fizzles,
vanishes, get other wordings for it. And it may RR beautifully.
Example: To Succeed. On checking, RRed six times, blew TA down, RSed
madly. RSed, dwindled and then ticked. Auditor went on. Pc ARC broke.
Auditor went back over list, got wording for To Succeed as "To be
successful". Goal RRed beautifully. No ARC Break. Onward bound into next
GPM.
Items with the article "A" or "The" omitted or added, or plural for
singular, will not fire well or at all.
Example: Item listed "A Sensation". Checked out as "Sensation". No
fire. Pc recalls it should be "A Sensation". Item fires and is an RI.
Accuracy of listing exactly what the pc said is important. He usually
said it right the first time. Say it back and check it out the same way.
Sometimes a pc wants to change a word in an Item being called. Always
let him but check both versions, the one listed and the one changed. The
one listed is usually right if recorded right by the auditor.
ITEM FROM ANOTHER GPM
A STRAY RI is an RI from a GPM of another goal than the one being
worked.
You can get a goal or Item from another GPM by backwards oppose or
overlisting.
In finding the goal of another GPM than the one you want to enter, this
is easy. It fires very badly, ticks and fools around.
An RI from another GPM on the other hand fires well. When you do the
"How does the goal relate to " step and the pc can't relate it, or
mass appears when he tries, watch it. You probably have a backwards oppose
behind you or have by-passed an RI by overlisting or underlisting, or, more
probably, both.
What to do? Put the stray RI on the plot marked as a "Stray" and locate
the wrong way oppose or by-pass on your Line Plot and correct.
It will do no harm to 4 way package the STRAY RI. But it probably won't
do any good either. Two GPMs later you suddenly find it as a new RI.
The pc will probably ARC Break at this time. But the reason for the ARC
Break lies in an earlier wrong way oppose or a by-passed RI or RIs.
Use the STRAY RI as a signal that a wrong way oppose exists behind you
or an RI has been by-passed.
The proper order of actions, if the above happens, is to
1. Locate the By-Passed Item;
2. Use it to continue your RI oppose (spiral staircase);
3. Ignore the wrong way oppose Item (don't instantly right way
oppose it) and any stray RI, letting them come up in their proper
sequence, no matter how much later that is.
MINIMIZE GOAL OPPOSE LISTS
Only do a goal oppose list at the start of the first GPM and that's it.
You don't
need any more if you go right. You'll go into GPMs in proper sequence on
the spiral staircase with no further goal oppose lists for any goal.
You will find, however, that the goal as an RI (see "To Scream" as an
RI, page 2, HCO Bulletin March 13, 1963) operates as an RI oppose list and
will be done in its proper time and place. This is not a source list and
behaves as an RI oppose list.
Take the goals off it to another list and nul them for the next GPM.
Only one Goal Oppose List is needed for a case.
After that, always use the last RI that still fires with an RR as your
source for RI oppose lists.
CLEAR TEST
You don't need to do a Clear Test. It might mess up the bank.
A natural free needle without prepcheck begins to appear around the
fifth GPM.
Check out a first goal clear by his or her Line Plot. If it compares in
all respects to that of HCO Bulletin March 13, and the goal is clean saying
it to the pc, call it a first goal clear.
A bracelet clear would be, actually, a theta clear, and would emerge
after the 5th to 8th GPM had been cleaned up.
By present calculation a free needle, totally stable theta clear
emerges after the 8th GPM has been run.
No calculation on Operating Thetan exists at this moment, but at a
guess, it's well beyond the 8th GPM.
Up to the 6th GPM a clear test is liable to foul up the case a little.
So save it for later and really send up rockets in celebration.
Thetans have done a lot of living.
----------
Routine 3-M is complex and, unless the auditor is well trained, has
pitfalls.
But we have years to learn it.
Clearing is the real thing.
It's worth it.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
19-21 March 1963
** 6303C19 SHSBC-250 R-3M How to Find Goals
** 6303C20 SH TVD-18 Rudiments and Havingness Session and Short
Lecture
(Aud: LRH)
** 6303C21 SHSBC-251 R-2G Series
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MARCH AD13
Franchise
CLEAR & OT
DON'T TRY TO MAKE AN OT BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLEAR.
One of the enduring observations which has arisen in clearing and which
will always remain true is summed up in this line:
DON'T TRY TO MAKE AN OT BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLEAR.
Stressing this conclusion is vitally important and will always be
important. Why?
In their understandable enthusiasm to do "the most for the pc" and
obtain the "highest gain" auditors tend to get as many RIs and goals as
possible. The "face" acquired in making a "third goal clear" also operates.
On the part of the pc there is always some pc pressure to "get on with
it", find more RIs, find more goals. There is also "face". "I'm a 3rd goal
clear."
The auditor, in his own enthusiasm for more GPMs, heeds the pc's
protest against case repair and prepchecks and commits the following crime:
WITHOUT MAKING A FIRST GOAL, ATTEMPTS TO MAKE AN OT.
He does this in gradients. Without making an actual first goal clear,
the auditor, with the pc's full insistence, makes a "Third Goal Clear".
This law takes over in the face of such "press on" tactics:
RULE: YOU CANNOT HAVE AN ANY GOAL CLEAR WITHOUT CLEARING THE GOAL AND
ALL ITS GPM.
To do this it is necessary to observe this rule:
RULE. A GOAL IS NOT CLEAR UNTIL ALL ROCKET READING ITEMS IN THAT GOAL
HAVE BEEN FOUND, PROPERLY ALIGNED AND DISCHARGED, AND THE GOAL HAS BEEN
FULLY PREPCHECKED.
The next Goal is available and easily found, RIs in the next GPM are
readily found, there seems to be no reason to waste auditing time by
cleaning up the last GPM. This is true of any next GPM.
However, just going on and on carries its penalties.
IF WE PERSIST IN FAILING TO FULLY CLEAR EACH GPM, WE CAN EXPECT A
GENERAL BOG DOWN IN ALL OF SCIENTOLOGY.
Why? Because we will all become subject to the very real penalties of
failing to clear GPMs before going on.
It is alright to find 2 RIs into the next GPM and to find its goal.
That is as it should be. But it is not alright not to go back and fully
polish up the GPM just left. This is true for all GPMs.
You haven't got a first goal clear if you haven't cleared the first GPM
and Goal.
So don't announce first goal clears if you haven't cleared fully the first
goal. Having the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, goals and some RIs in each still
doesn't make a first goal clear.
The following liabilities occur when the GPM just left is not fully
cleaned up:
1. The pc drags mass from the last GPM into the next GPM;
2. Accuracy of RI finding in the next GPM is diminished;
3. The pc, being more subject to errors in auditing, is far more likely
to heavily ARC Break;
4. Body mass (weight) does not diminish;
5. Pc's reality on the next GPM RIs is diminished;
6. A feeling of lassitude (a shadow of the Sad Effect) comes over the pc
and he or she does his own work in life with less enthusiasm;
7. The pc's health and actions are better but one does not see what one
expects from clearing. Therefore clearing is downgraded by the auditor
and pc and others;
8. The actual soaring gains of clearing are not observed, since the GPM
and its goal are not actually cleared but only de-intensified.
Clear tests, which will be issued from time to time, should be
scrupulously passed before going on to the actual running of the next bank.
If these simple precautions are observed, clearing is formidable to
behold. If they are not observed, then clearing won't be observed-because
it hasn't been done.
Don't try to make an Operating Thetan before you make a clear. The
results will be far, far below that of just first goal clear.
A lot of time and agony went into discovering these things. I hope you
will benefit by them.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LREl:dr.bh
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
26 March-4 April 1963
** 6303C26 SHSBC-252 Case Repair
** 6303C27 SHSBC-254 TVD-19 Sec Checking, Talk by LRH
6303C28 SHSBC-253 The GPM
** 6304C02 SHSBC-256 Line Plot, Items
** 6304C04 SHSBC-255 Anatomy of the GPM
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 13 APRIL AD13
Franchise
ROUTINE 2-G
ORIGINAL ROUTINE 2, 3GA, 2-10, 2-12,
2-12A AND OTHERS SPECIALLY ADAPTED
GOALS FINDING
DESIGNATION OF ROUTINES
Now that Class II Auditors may find goals, a great deal of material
about goals finding can be released to them.
Goal finding activities are now designated as follows:
ROUTINE 2-G1
Special Goals Prepcheck administered before a goal is found. This is a
refined version of the Problems Intensive, slanted directly at goals.
ROUTINE 2-GPH
Special Goals Prepcheck done by Pre-Hav levels with a new assessment
for each button. This is a refined use of the original Routine 2.
ROUTINE 2-G2
Listing and nulling goals lists, using Left-Hand Buttons on last ones
in and Big Mid Ruds on the final goal left in. Done in short lists, a
couple pages listed and nulled at a time. This is a refined version of the
oldest goals finding process.
ROUTINE 2-G3
Using any Items ever found on pc to list goals against, and using the
method of R2-G2 to find the goal. This is a refined version of 3-GA and 3-
GAXX and also uses all 2-10, 2-12 RIs ever found.
ROUTINE 2-G4
Listing special lists for RSing or RRing Items without nulling and
using the RSing or RRing Items seen on listing to list goals against. This
is a new use of 3D, 3GA, 2-10, 2- 12.
ROUTINE 2-G5
This is Routine 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A wherein everything known about or
gained by those processes is used to find RIs and list goals against all
RIs found.
It can be seen from the above that everything known about the original
Routine 2 and goals finding is now reworked into these Routine 2-Gs for
rapid and positive goal finding by Class II Auditors.
Subsequent HCO Bulletins will detail each of these routines in turn.
They are quite stable as processes and have been in use for some time.
Note: Everything released or known about Routines 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A is
valid, and the results of these on preclears and any RI ever found on a
preclear is used for the purpose of listing goals and finding the
preclear's goal. None of this material or study of it has been wasted. Any
RI ever found on a pc is useful in goals listing.
Further, every Problems Intensive brought the pc closer to his or her
goal and an easier run on Routine 3 processes.
Whereas R2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A worked in their own right, they are even
more useful in finding goals. The only danger of 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A was:
If too many RIs were found without finding the pc's goal for that GPM, the
ability of the pc to RR and RS would shut off. The RR and RS turn back on
the moment the goal for that GPM is found.
A close study of the R2-Gs is necessary to their workability. And
needless to remark, the only reason any Scientology process works lies in
adherence to the highly specialized auditing skill of Scientology with its
TRs and complete attention to the precise form of the session itself.
Without this pure auditing form, Scientology processes will not work.
Scientology processes do not work when administered outside the Auditor's
Code and without skillfully practised TRs. The loose "disciplines" of
psychoanalysis, psychiatry, medicine and psychology are completely
inadequate in the administration of Scientology processes. Completely aside
from the fact that Scientology does not address healing, no psychologist,
psychiatrist, psychoanalyst or medical doctor is authorized to use
Scientology by reason of a medical or philosophical degree. Only a fully
qualified auditor, properly certificated by an authorized Academy may
lawfully use Scientology processes or data.
Only auditors trained to the level of Class II may use Routine 2
processes.
Routine 2 and Routine 3 processes are designed for use in clearing the
human spirit and are not to be used in healing or physical treatment.
HGCs may only clear and may not otherwise apply Scientology processes.
The public is warned not to accept Scientology processing except from
Academy trained auditors and is additionally warned not to embark on being
cleared except by a properly certified auditor in consultation with a Class
IV clearing consultant The rewards of clearing are enormous. The perils of
clearing in unskilled hands are too numerous to mention.
It is with these understandings that the Routine 2-Gs are released to
Class II Auditors.
LRH:gl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
6304C16 SHSBC-257 Top of GPM
** 6304C18 SHSBC-258 Directive Listing
6304C20 PAC- 1 Clearing
6304C20 PAC-2 Clearing
** 6304C23 SHSBC-259 Goals Problems Mass
** 6304C25 SHSBC-260 Finding Goals
** 6304C30 SHSBC-261 Directive Listing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 APRIL 1963
Central Orgs
Academies
METER READING TRS
DEFINITIONS
An Instant Read
An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs
at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor.
HCO B May 25, 1962
An Instant Rudiment Read
On Rudiments, repetitive or fast, the instant read can occur anywhere
within the last word of the question or when the thought major has been
anticipated by the preclear, and must be taken up by the auditor. This is
not a prior read. Preclears poorly in session, being handled by auditors
with indifferent TR One, anticipate the instant read reactively as they are
under their own control. Such a read occurs into the body of the last
meaningful word in the question. It never occurs latent.
HCO B July 21, 1962
A Needle Reaction
Rise, fall, speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle),
theta bop or any other action.
HCO B May 25, 1962
By "major thought" is meant the complete thought being expressed in
words by the auditor. Reads which occur prior to the completion of the
major thought are "prior reads". Reads which occur later than its
completion are "latent reads".
HCO B May 25, 1962
By "minor thought" is meant subsidiary thoughts expressed by words
within the major thought. They are caused by the reactivity of individual
words within the full words. They are ignored.
HCO B May 25, 1962
E-METER TR 20
PURPOSE.
To familiarise student with an E-Meter.
POSITION:
Coach and student sit facing each other with an E-Meter in front of the
student, either on a table or a chair.
COMMANDS:
"Reach for the meter" "Withdraw from the meter". Questions given
alternately.
TRAINING STRESS:
Coach to see that student does command each time. Coach asks from time
to
time, "How are you doing?" Coach also takes up any comm lag or physical
manifestation with a "What happened?"
HISTORY:
Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, September 1962, at Saint Hill. Recompiled
by Reg Sharpe, Course Secretary Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, April
1963.
E-METER TR 21
PURPOSE:
To train student to read an E-Meter accurately, speedily and with
certainty.
POSITION:
Coach and student sit facing each other. Student has an E-Meter
(switched on) and coach holds the cans.
PATTER:
Coach: "Define a needle reaction."
Coach: "Define an instant read."
Coach. "Define a rudiment instant read."
Student should give with a high degree of accuracy the definitions in
this bulletin. If it is not so, coach reads definition and has student
repeat it.
Coach: "Take a phrase from the bulletin, say it to me and observe the
meter."
When the student has done this coach asks the following questions:
1. "Did you get a needle reaction?" "What was it?" "Where was it?"
2. "Did you get a rudiment instant read?" "What was it?"
3. "Did you get an instant read?" "What was it?"
TRAINING STRESS:
Coach needs to keep control of the coaching session. He should not
depart from the above questions. If student is in any doubt at any time
coach asks for a definition of whatever is being handled. Example: Student:
"I'm not sure if I had a reaction." Coach: "Define a needle reaction." When
student has done so, coach repeats question, "Did you get a needle
reaction?" and continues thus until student gives a definite answer.
Any hesitancy or any failure on the part of the student to observe a
read is queried with a "What happened?" Occasionally ask student, "How are
you doing?"
This drill needs to be coached exactly as outlined above. Student is
very likely to start blowing confusion. Don't Q & A with it. No flunks, no
evaluation or invalidation.
HISTORY:
Developed by Reg Sharpe from the materials of L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill,
April 1963, to improve E-Meter reading rapidly and without student being
invalidated by another student who does not know how to read a meter.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL 1963
Central Orgs
Academies
MODERNIZED TRAINING DRILLS
USING PERMISSIVE COACHING
Much of the difficulty experienced in teaching the TRs and getting
students proficient in the TRs is due to bad coaching. This bulletin is
issued to overcome this difficulty. It is in fact an amendment of HCO
Bulletin of April 17, 1961, which as itself remains valid.
The essence of this bulletin is that the drills do not permit the coach
to "flunk" a student, instead an exact patter is laid down for the coach
and instructors should ensure that the coach keeps to the patter.
TR 0 has been subdivided into 4 parts.
One new drill is introduced-"The Coaches' Drill".
The TRs are important because:
1. The auditing skill of any student remains only as good as he can do
]his TRs.
2. Flubs in TRs are the basis of all confusion in subsequent efforts to
audit.
3. If the TRs are not well learned early in the HPA/HCA BScn/HCS
Courses, THE BALANCE OF THE COURSE WILL FAIL AND INSTRUCTORS AT UPPER
LEVELS WILL BE TEACHING NOT THEIR SUBJECTS BUT TRS.
4. Almost all confusions on Meter, Model Sessions and SOP Goals stem
directly from inability to do the TRs.
5. A student who has not mastered his TRs will not master anything
further.
6. SOP Goals will not function in the presence of bad TRs. The preclear
is already being overwhelmed by process velocity and cannot bear up to
TR flubs without ARC breaks.
Academies were tough on TRs up to 1958 and have since tended to soften.
Comm Courses are not a tea party.
These TRs given here should be put in use at once in all auditor
training, in Academy and HGC and in the future should never be relaxed.
Seven weeks on a Comm Course until he does the TRs perfectly lets the
student receive at least one week's training in the eight. A poor Comm
Course in one week can wipe out the whole eight weeks.
NUMBER: TR 0. Revised 1961 and 1963.
NAME: Confronting Preclear.
COMMANDS: None.
POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance
apart- about three feet. Student has an E-Meter.
PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with
nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to hold a position three
feet in front of a preclear, to BE there and not do anything else but BE
there.
TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither
making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look
at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not
speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. It will be found the
student tends to confront WITH a body part, rather than just confront, or
to use a system of confronting rather than just BE there. The drill is
misnamed if Confront means to DO something to the pc. The whole action is
to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear
without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending
self. After a student has become able to just sit there for two hours "bull
baiting" can begin. Anything added to being there is queried by the coach
with a "What happened?" Twitches, blinks, sighs, fidgets, anything except
just being there is promptly queried with the reason why, if necessary. TR
0 has been divided into four parts. Each part is drilled for about 15
minutes in turn and then begun over again and again.
TR 0 (A)
This is exactly as given above except that "bull baiting" is omitted.
Whenever student speaks, fidgets, giggles, is embarrassed or goes anaten
coach says, "That's it, what happened?" Coach listens carefully to what
student has to say, acknowledges and says, "Start." In fact, coach will do
the foregoing whenever he sees any physical action or change, however
small, manifested by the student. It is also desirable from time to time
that the coach says, "That's it, how are you doing?", listens carefully to
what student says, acknowledges and then says start.
No flunks, no invalidation or validation other than giving a win from time
to time as merited.
TR 0 (B)
Exactly as TR 0 (A) with the addition that student is required by coach to
answer the following questions which are given alternately:
"What can you see about me that you like?"
"What can you see about me that you don't like?"
Coach acknowledges each answer without invalidation, validation or
evaluation. Coach asks "What happened?" whenever there is any physical
manifestation on the part of the student or whenever there is an overlong
comm lag. Coach also asks from time to time "How are you doing?"
TR 0 (C)
In this part bull baiting is introduced, otherwise it is exactly as TR
0 (A). Patter as a confronted subject: The coach may say anything or do
anything except leave the chair. The students' "buttons" can be found and
tromped on hard. Any words not coaching words may receive no response from
the student. If the student responds, the coach is instantly a coach (see
patter above).
Instructors should have coaches let students have some wins (coach does
not mention these) and then, by gradient stress, get the coaches to start
in on the student to invite flunks. This is "bull baiting". The student is
queried each time he or she reacts, no matter how minutely, to being
baited.
TR 0 (D)
This drill has been designed to put the finishing touches to a TR 0. It
needs to be done very thoroughly and with plenty of interest on the part of
the coach. It is run as follows:
1. Coach says to student, "Define a good auditing attitude." He
accepts student's definition.
2. Coach says, "Show me a good auditing attitude."
3. After a few minutes coach asks the following questions:
(a) "Did you show me a good auditing attitude?"
(b) "What did you do?"
(c) "What happened?"
4. Actions 2 and 3 are repeated two or three times, then start
over again at 1.
5. When the "Good auditing attitude" is being done well substitute
"an interested attitude" or "a professional attitude" or "an
understanding attitude". All these "attitudes" should be drilled
thoroughly. Further, coach should take any attitude the student
presents, e.g. if student uses in his definition the words "It's
being there" coach makes a mental note to use it later. Example:
"Define a 'being there' attitude." "Show me a 'being there'
attitude. "
The whole of TR 0 should be taught rough-rough-rough and not left until
the student can do it. Training is considered satisfactory at this level
only if the student can BE three feet in front of a person without
flinching, concentrating or confronting with, regardless of what the
confronted person says or does.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train
students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or
conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be "interesting".
Revised by L. Ron Hubbard April 1961 on finding that SOP Goals required for
its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes.
Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe.
NUMBER: TR 1. Revised 1961 and 1963.
NAME: Dear Alice.
PURPOSE: To train the student to deliver a command newly and in a new unit
of time to a preclear without flinching or trying to overwhelm or using a
via.
COMMANDS: A phrase (with the "he saids" omitted) is picked out of the book
"Alice in Wonderland" and read to the coach.
POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable
distance apart. Student has an E-Meter.
TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his
own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural
not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may
have.
(A) When student has delivered a phrase coach asks student the
following:
1. "Did you own the phrase?"
2. "Did you deliver it in a new unit of time?"
3. "Where did the communication start from?"
4. "Where did the communication land?"
If student is in difficulty or confused by the drill, coach reads the
purpose of the drill and the training stress and has student clear the
purpose and the training stress.
(B) After a short while the following is introduced.
Coach tells student, "Create the space of the coaching session by
locating 4 points in front of you and four points behind you." This is done
on a gradient scale until student is doing the drill comfortably. Coach
just asks, "Did you do that?"
Then "A" above is reintroduced and the coach asking from time to time,
"Did you create the space?" If student has difficulty coach goes back to
getting student to locate the four points in front and the four points
behind.
This drill is passed only when the student can put across a command
naturally, without strain or artificiality or elocutionary bobs and
gestures, and when the student can do it easily and relaxedly.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the
communication formula to new students. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard 1961 to
increase auditing ability. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of
L. Ron Hubbard.
NUMBER: TR 2. Revised 1961 and 1963.
NAME: Acknowledgments.
PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgment is a method of controlling
preclear communication and that an acknowledgment is a full stop. Also that
an acknowledgment lets a pc know that he has answered an auditing command.
COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from "Alice in Wonderland" omitting "He
saids" and the student thoroughly acknowledges them.
POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a comfortable
distance apart. Student with an E-Meter.
TRAINING STRESS: To teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so
preclear knows it was heard. To ask student from time to time what was
said. To curb over and under acknowledgment. To teach him that an
acknowledgment is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or
an encouragement to the preclear to go on.
To teach further that one can fail to get an acknowledgment across or can
fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgment or can take a pc's head off with
an acknowledgment. Patter: The coach says, "Start," reads a line and says
after student has acknowledged:
1. "What did I say?"
2. "Did you understand it?"
3. "Did your acknowledgment let me know I had originated
something?"
4. "Did it end cycle?"
5. "Where did the acknowledgment start from?"
6. "Where did the acknowledgment land?"
7. "Did you own the space?"
In questions 5 and 6 student must indicate as in TR 1. Ask "What
happened?" as required in previous TRs. Coach checks carefully, "Are you
really satisfied that you are giving good acknowledgments?" He reads the
purpose of the TR and the Training Stress for the student to check over.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new
students that an acknowledgment ends a communication cycle and a period of
time, that a new command begins a new period of time. Revised 1961 by L.
Ron Hubbard. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard.
NUMBER: TR 3. Revised 1961 and 1963.
NAME: Duplicative Question.
PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing
question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with
other questions, and to acknowledge it. To teach that one never asks a
second question until he has received an answer to the one asked.
COMMANDS: "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?"
POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart. Student
has an E-Meter.
TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgment of its answer in
one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into
variations of command. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked
as though it had never occurred to anyone before.
The student must learn to give and receive an answer and to acknowledge it
in one unit of time.
The student should not fail to get an answer to the question asked, or
fail to repeat the exact question.
Coach instructs student to run the command "Do birds fly?" or "Do fish
swim?" etc. Student is required to acknowledge in such a way that the coach
knows he has answered the command and if he doesn't answer the command to
repeat the command, letting the coach know it is a repeat. Coach just
answers the command to start. Patter is as follows:
S. "Do birds fly?"
C. "Yes."
S. "Good."
C. "Did I answer the command?"
S. "Yes."
C. "Did you feel that you had let me know that I had answered
the command?"
S. "No" or "Yes."
C. "OK, start again."
This patter is repeated over and over until student has a certainty
that he is doing the drill.
Then coach starts giving commands which are not answers. These
communications must all be directed at the student, i.e., something to do
with the pc's attitude, appearance, private life (real or imaginary).
Example of patter:
S. "Do birds fly?"
C. "Your breath stinks."
S. "I'll repeat the question. Do birds fly?"
C. "That's it. Did I answer the question?"
S. "No."
C. "Did you let me know I hadn't?"
S. "By not acknowledging, repeating the command."
C. "OK, start." And so on.
Coach continues until student is easily doing the drill and with great
certainty. Coach can use such originations always directly concerned with
the student personally and if he finds a button he continues until the
student is tolerating it quite happily. If student breaks up or becomes
misemotional coach merely asks "What happened?"
No flunks. No evaluation, invalidation or validation.
Ask "What happened?" as required. When the question is not answered,
the student must say gently, "I'll repeat the auditing question," and do so
until he gets an answer. Anything except commands, acknowledgment and, as
needed, the repeat statement is queried. Unnecessary use of the repeat
statement is queried. A poor command is queried. A poor acknowledgment is
queried. Student misemotion or confusion is queried. Student failure to
utter the next command without a long comm lag is queried. A choppy or
premature acknowledgment is queried. Lack of an acknowledgment (or with a
distinct comm lag) is queried.
"Start", "Flunk", "Good" and "That's it" may not be used to fluster or trap
the student. Any other statement under the sun may be. The coach may try to
leave his chair in this TR. If he succeeds it is queried.
The coach should not use introverted statements such as "I just had a
cognition." "Coach divertive" statements should all concern the student,
and should be designed to throw the student off and cause the student to
lose session control or track of what the student is doing.
The student's job is to keep a session going in spite of anything, using
only command, the repeat statement or the acknowledgment.
The student may use his or her hands to prevent a "blow" (leaving) of the
coach.
If the student does anything else than the above, it is queried. By queried
is meant coach asks student "What happened?"
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to overcome
variations and sudden changes in sessions. Revised 1961 and 1963 by L. Ron
Hubbard. The old TR had a comm bridge as part of its training but this is
now part of and is taught in Model Session and is no longer needed at this
level. Auditors have been frail in getting their questions answered. This
TR was redesigned to improve that frailty.
NUMBER: TR 4. Revised 1961 and 1963.
NAME: Preclear Originations.
PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off
session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear
throughout an origination.
COMMANDS: The student runs "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" on coach.
Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared
list given by Instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction
of coach.
POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other at a comfortable distance
apart.
TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear originations and do three
things: (1) Understand it; (2) Acknowledge it; and (3) Return preclear to
session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of
comprehension, he corrects the coach into better handling.
Patter: All originations concern the coach, his ideas, reactions or
difficulties, none concern the auditor. Otherwise the patter is the same as
in earlier TRs. The student's patter is governed by:
1. Clarifying and understanding the origin.
2. Acknowledging the origin.
3. Giving the repeat statement "I'll repeat the auditing command,"
and then giving it.
Anything else is queried. The auditor must be taught to prevent ARC breaks
and differentiate between a vital problem that concerns the pc and a mere
effort to blow session. (TR 3 Revised.) If the student does more than (1)
Understand, (2) Acknowledge, (3) Return pc to session, he is in error.
Coach may throw in remarks personal to student as on TR 3. Student's
failure to differentiate between these (by trying to handle them) and
remarks aimed only at the student is queried.
Student's failure to persist is always queried in any TR but here more so.
Coach should not always read from list to originate, and not always look at
student when about to comment.
By Originate is meant a statement or remark referring to the state of the
coach or fancied case.
By Comment is meant a statement or remark aimed only at student or room.
Originations are handled, Comments are disregarded by the student.
TR 4 and anti-Q & A is what bothers auditors the most. Q & Aing is a
fault which causes ARC breaks and therefore throws the pc out of session.
The reason is that when you Q & A the pc is not permitted to let go of an
origination and is therefore left with a Missed Withhold. Q & A = Missed
Withholds = ARC Breaks.
Coach starts by asking student to define TR 4. If student doesn't know
it then coach gives the definition as follows: TR 4 is to hear an
origination, to understand it, to acknowledge it and return pc to session.
Similarly coach asks for a definition of Q& A, which is: Double
questioning, changing because pc changed, following pc's instruction.
Coach then tells student to run the process "Do birds fly?" or "Do fish
swim?" Coach frequently introduces an origination. When student has dealt
with origination or has tried to deal with it, coach asks searchingly the
following questions:
1. "Were you tongue-tied? startled? thrown off session?"
2. "Did you hear origination?"
3. "Did you understand it?"
4. "Did you acknowledge it?"
5. "Did you return me to session?"
6. "Did you double question me?"
7. "Did you change because I had changed?"
8. "Did you follow my instruction?"
9. "What did you do?"
10. "What happened?"
Question 10 can be asked randomly throughout the drill whenever coach sees
or hears something that indicates student is in trouble of any sort.
Coach is permitted to "lead student up the garden path" for a little while
before asking the above question.
This drill needs to be done very thoroughly. If coach notices that student
is using a method or pattern, coach can add in the question "Are you using
a method or pattern in this drill?"
The drill is continued over and over until student is doing it comfortably
and happily. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956
to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out. Revised by L.
Ron Hubbard in 1961 to teach an auditor more about handling origins and
preventing ARC breaks. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L.
Ron Hubbard.
Coaches' Drill
Coach and student (who is in this case the student coach) seated as in
the normal TR drills.
Coach has the copy of the drill in front of him. He tells student to
coach a TR. Whenever student departs from the script coach says, "That's
it. The correct question there should be_____." "The correct action there
should be_____. " This is continued until student coach is thoroughly
conversant with the script.
Coach keeps student on the drill and at the end of each cycle asks
student, "Did you notice any physical changes on my part?" "What were
they?" "Did you ask me 'What happened?' each time?"
Drill is continued with each TR in turn until student is administering
all the TRs efficiently, interestedly and competently.
Ask "What happened?" as required.
HISTORY: Developed by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard in
April 1963 at Saint Hill to teach students how to coach the TRs.
Training Note
It is better to go through these TRs several times getting tougher each
time than to hang up on one TR forever or to be so tough at start student
goes into a decline.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
6305C02 SHSBC-262 Running the GPM
** 6305C14 SHSBC-263 Implant GPMs
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MAY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
THE TIME TRACK
AND
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
BULLETIN 1
It has been so many years since engram running was a familiar tool of
the auditor that it is hard to know where to begin to teach this skill all
over again. Actually, millions of words have been written or spoken on the
subject of running engrams. However, oddly enough there was not one
condensed, summary HCO Bulletin on the subject. Engram running, developed,
was never then summated. I will therefore attempt to remedy the matter.
ENGRAM RUNNING SIMPLIFIED
No recapitulation or summation of materials was ever done on engram
running. Therefore while all lectures and books on it are true, not one
contains a final survey of engram running including everything vital to
this skill and the laws which govern it. The material in books and tapes
should be reviewed. But the material in these HCO Bulletins should be
learned thoroughly as it takes precedence over all earlier material.
WHY PEOPLE HAVE TROUBLE RUNNING ENGRAMS
I have gotten very impatient with the constant plea for a rote set of
commands to run engrams. The need for such commands is a testimony to the
Auditor's lack of knowledge of the mechanics of the Time Track and the pc's
behavior during an engram running session.
An auditor must know the basic laws and mechanics of the Time Track in
order to run engrams. There is no rote procedure and never will be that
will be successful on all cases in absence of a knowledge of what a Time
Track is.
There is no substitute for knowing what engrams are and what they do.
Knowing that, you can run engrams. Not knowing that, there is nothing that
will take the place of such knowledge. You have to know the behavior of and
data about engrams. There is no royal road that avoids such knowledge. If
you know all about engrams you can run them. If you don't, you'll make a
mess regardless of the commands given for use.
Therefore the essence of engram running is a knowledge of the character
and behavior of engrams. This is not a vast subject.
However, these three things stand in the way of learning about engrams:
1. Engrams contain pain and unconsciousness; fear of pain or inflicting
pain causes the auditor not to confront the pc's engrams and
unconsciousness is after all a not knowing condition; and
2. The auditor is so accustomed to projectionists reeling off movies and
TV programs for him or her that the auditor tends to just sit while the
action rolls forward, acting like a spectator, not the projectionist.
3. Failure to handle Time in Incidents.
On (1) you can remedy this just by knowing about it and realizing it
and surmounting it, and on (2) you can remedy the attitude by realizing
that the auditor,
not the pc (or some installed movie projectionist), is operating the pc's
bank. (3) is covered later.
Take a pocket movie projector and any bit of a reel of film and wind it
back and forth for a while and you'll see you are moving it. Then give a
command and move the film and you'll have what you're doing as an auditor.
Many drills can be developed using such equipment and (2) will be overcome.
(1) requires just understanding and the will to rise superior to it.
THE TIME TRACK
The endless record, called the TIME TRACK, complete with 52
perceptions, of the pc's entire past, is available to the auditor and his
or her auditing commands.
The rules are: THE TIME TRACK OBEYS THE AUDITOR; THE TIME TRACK DOES
NOT OBEY A PRECLEAR (early in auditing).
The Time Track is a very accurate record of the pc's past, very
accurately timed, very obedient to the auditor. If motion picture film were
3D, had 52 perceptions and could fully react upon the observer, the Time
Track could be called a motion picture film. It is at least
350,000,000,000,000 years long, probably much longer, with a scene about
every 1/25 of a second.
DEFINITIONS
That part of the Time Track that is free of pain and misadventure is
called simply the Free Track, in that the pc doesn't freeze up on it.
Any mental picture that is unknowingly created and part of the Time
Track is called a FACSIMILE, whether an engram, secondary, lock or pleasure
moment.
Any knowingly created mental picture that is not part of a Time Track
is called a MOCK-UP.
Any unknowingly created mental picture that appears to have been a
record of the physical universe but is in fact only an altered copy of the
Time Track is called a DUB-IN.
Those parts of the Time Track that contain moments of pain and
unconsciousness are called ENGRAMS.
Those parts of the Time Track which contain misemotion based on earlier
engramic experience are called SECONDARIES.
Those parts of the Time Track which contain the first moment an earlier
engram is restimulated are called KEY-INS.
Those parts of the Time Track which contain moments the pc associates
with Key-ins are called LOCKS.
A series of similar engrams, or of similar locks, are called CHAINS.
A BASIC is the first incident (engram, lock, overt act) on any chain.
BASIC BASIC is the first engram on the whole Time Track.
Incidents are not in piles or files. They are simply a part of the
consecutive Time Track.
By INCIDENT is meant the recording of an experience, simple or complex,
related by the same subject, location or people, understood to take place
in a short and finite time period such as minutes or hours or days.
A CHAIN OF INCIDENTS makes up a whole adventure or activity related by the
same subject, general location or people, understood to take place in a
long time period, weeks, months, years or even billions or trillions of
years.
An incident can be an engram, secondary, key-in or lock. A chain of
incidents can therefore be a chain of experiences which are engrams,
secondaries, key-ins and locks.
A chain of incidents has only one BASIC. Its BASIC is the earliest
engram received from or overt act committed against the subject, location
or beings which make it a chain.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE TIME TRACK
Shakespeare said all life was a play. He was right in so far as the
Time Track is a 3D, 52 perception movie which is a whole series of plays
concerning the preclear. But the influence of it upon the preclear removes
it from the class of pretense and play. It is not only very real, it is
what contains whatever it is that depresses the pc to what he is today. Its
savageness relieved, the preclear can recover, and only then. There is no
other valid workable road.
There are valences, circuits and machinery in the reactive mind, as
well as Reliable Items and Goals. But these all have their place on the
Time Track and are part of the Time Track.
The preclear, as a thetan, is the effect of all this recorded
experience. Almost all of it is unknown to him.
There are no other influencing agencies for the preclear than the Time
Track and Present Time. And Present Time, a moment later, is part of the
Time Track.
THE CREATION OF THE TIME TRACK
The preclear makes the Time Track as time rolls forward. He does this
as an obsessive create on a sub-awareness level. It is done by an
INVOLUNTARY INTENTION, not under the pc's awareness or control.
The road to clear by making the preclear take over the creating of the
Time Track was long explored and proved completely valueless and chancy.
The road to clear by making the preclear leave the Time Track
(exteriorization) lasts only for minutes, hours or days and has proven
valueless.
The road to clear, proven over 13 years of intense research and vast
numbers of auditing hours and cases, lies only in an auditor handling the
Time Track and removing from it, by means governed by the Auditor's Code,
the material, both motivators and overts, which, recorded on it, is out of
the control of the pc and holds the pc at effect. Listing for goals and
reliable items, engram running, Prepchecking, Sec Checking, recall
processes and assists all handle the Time Track successfully and are
therefore the basis of all modern processing.
APPARENT FAULTS IN THE TIME TRACK
There are no faults in the recording of the Time Track. There are only
snarls caused by groupers, and unavailability and lack of perception of the
Time Track.
A Grouper is anything which pulls the Time Track into a bunch at one or
more points. When the grouper is gone the Time Track is perceived to be
straight.
Unavailability is caused by the pc's inability to confront or BOUNCERS
and DENYERS. A BOUNCER throws the pc backward, forward, up or down from the
track and so makes it apparently unavailable. A DENYER obscures a part of
track by implying it is not there or elsewhere (a mis-director) or should
not be viewed.
Groupers, bouncers and denyers are material (matter, energy, space and time
in the form of effort, force, mass, delusion, etc) or command phrases
(statements that group, bounce or deny). When a grouper, bouncer or denyer
are enforced by both material and command phrases they become most
effective, making the Time Track unavailable to the pc.
Unless the Time Track is made available it cannot be as-ised by the pc
and so remains aberrative.
The Time Track is actual in that it is made of matter, energy, space
and time as well as thought. Those who cannot confront Mest think it is
composed only of thought. A grouper can make a pc fat and a bouncer thin if
the pc is chronically stuck in them or if the track is grouped or made
unavailable through bad auditing.
THE ORIGIN OF THE TIME TRACK
Through a great deal of study, not entirely complete, the following
surmises can be made about the Time Track, the physical universe and the
pc.
The tendency of the physical universe is condensation and
solidification. At least this is the effect produced on the thetan.
Continued dwelling in it without rehabilitation causes the thetan to become
less reaching ("smaller") and more solid. A thetan, being a static, may
become convinced he cannot duplicate matter, energy, space, or time or
certain intentions and so succumbs to the influence of this universe. This
influence in itself would be negligible unless recorded by the thetan,
stored and made reactive upon the thetan as a Time Track, and then
maliciously used to trap the thetan.
Recent researches I have done in the field of aesthetics tend to
indicate that rhythm is the source of present time. The thetan is carried
along both by his own desire to have, do or be and by having been
overwhelmed in the distant past by a continuous minute rhythm. This is a
possible explanation of a thetan's continuous presence in Present Time.
Present Time, then, can be defined as a response to the continuous rhythm
of the physical universe, resulting in a hereness in nowness.
In response to this rhythm, undoubtedly assisted by overts and implants
and convictions of the need of recording, the thetan began to respond to
the physical universe in his creations and eventually obsessively created
(by means of restimulatable involuntary intentions) the passing moments of
the physical universe. But only when he began to consider these pictures
important could they be used to aberrate him.
These are only partly permanently created. Other moments of the past
become re-created only when the thetan's intention is directed to them, on
which these parts spontaneously appear, the thetan not voluntarily creating
them.
This forms the Time Track. Some parts of it, then, are "permanently" in
a state of creation and the majority of it becoming created when the
thetan's attention is directed to them.
The "permanently created" portions are those times of overwhelm and
indecision which almost entirely submerged the thetan's own will and
awareness.
Such parts are found in implants and great stresses. These parts are in
permanent restimulation.
The mechanism of permanent restimulation consists of opposing forces of
comparable magnitude which cause a balance which does not respond to
current time and remains "timeless" .
Such phenomena as the overt act-motivator sequence, the problem
(postulate counter-postulate), tend to hold certain portions of the Time
Track in "permanent creation" and cause them to continue to exist in
present time as unresolved masses, energies, spaces, times and
significances.
The intention of the physical universe (and those who have become degraded
enough to further only its ends) is to make a thetan solid, immobile and
decisionless.
The fight of the thetan is to remain unsolid, mobile or immobile at
will, and capable of decision.
This in itself is the principal unresolved problem and it itself
creates timeless mass which accomplishes the basic purpose of a trap.
The mechanism of the Time Track can then be said to be the primary
action in making a thetan solid, immobile and decisionless. For without a
record of the past accumulating and forming a gradient of solidification of
the thetan, the entrapment potential of the physical universe would be
negligible and the havingness which it offers might be quite therapeutic.
It probably requires more than just living in the physical universe to
become aberrated. The main method of causing aberration and entrapment is
therefore found in actions which create or confuse the Time Track.
A thetan has things beyond Matter, Energy, Space and Time which can
deteriorate. His power of choice, his ability to keep two locations
separate, his belief in self and his ethical standards are independent of
material things. But these can be recorded in the Time Track as well and
one sees them recover when no longer influenced by the Time Track.
As the thetan himself makes his own Time Track, even if under
compulsion, and commits his own overts, even on provocation, it can be
said, then, that the thetan aberrates himself. But he is assisted by
mammoth betrayals and his necessity to combat them. And he is guilty of
aberrating his fellows.
It is doubtful if another type of being built the physical universe and
still lurks within it to trap further. But older beings, already degraded,
have continuously been about to help newer beings to go downhill.
Each Thetan had his own "Home Universe" and these colliding or made to
collide, probably are the physical universe. But of this origin and these
intentions we are not at this time certain.
It is enough for us to resolve the problem of the aberrative nature of
this universe and provide a technology which assuages that aberration and
keeps one abreast of it. This is practical and we can already do it.
Further insight into the problem will be a further bonus. And further data
is already in view.
(Bulletin 2 on The Time Track and Engram Running will follow.)
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dr.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6305C15 SHSBC-264 TVD-20, Blocking Out and Dating Items and
Incidents Prior to Implants
** 6305C16 SHSBC-265 The Time Track
** 6305C21 SHSBC-266 The Helatrobus Implants
** 6305C22 SHSBC-267 TVD-21, Engram Running-Helatrobus Implant
(Aud: LRH)
** 6305C23 SHSBC-268 State of O.T.
** 6305C28 SHSBC-269 Handling ARC Breaks
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 3
R-3 MODEL SESSION
Here is the new Routine 3 Model Session as outlined in HCO Bulletin May
13, AD13. All other Model Sessions are canceled herewith. This form is to
be used in all auditing in the future.
SESSION PRELIMINARIES
All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this
order.
l. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair.
2. Clear the Auditing room with "Is it all right to audit in this room?"
(not metered).
3. Can squeeze "Squeeze the cans, please." And note that pc registers,
by the squeeze, on the meter, and note the level of the pc's
havingness. (Don't run hav here.)
4. Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the
session.
START OF SESSION.
5. "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?"
"START OF SESSION." (Tone 40)
"Has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No," say again, "START
OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No,"
say, "We will cover it in a moment."
RUDIMENTS:
6. "What goals would you like to set for this session?"
Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they
tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his
attention out of the session.
7. At this point in the session there are actions which could be
undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments
using "Since the last time I audited you", or pull missed W/Hs as
indicated. But if pc cheerful and needle smooth, just get down to work.
One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the
beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc,
the latter being simply another indication of the pc's being upset or
ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the
session hasn't started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc
had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session.
RUNNING O/W:
"If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general
process. The process is: 'What have you done?', 'What have you
withheld?' " (The process is run very permissively until the needle
looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed. )
"Where are you now on the time track?"
"If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you
are close to present time and then end this process." (After each
command, ask, "When?") "That was the last command. Is there anything
you would care to ask or say before I end this process?"
"End of process."
RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS:
One would use the Middle Rudiments with, "Since the last time I audited
you", if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher
position than it was at the end of the last session.
ORDER OF BUTTONS
Here is the correct wording and order of use for the big Mid Ruds.
" has anything been suppressed?"
" is there anything you have been careful of?"
" is there anything you have failed to reveal?"
" has anything been invalidated?"
" has anything been suggested?"
" has any mistake been made?"
" is there anything you have been anxious about?"
" has anything been protested?"
" has anything been decided?"
" has anything been asserted?"
In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to
Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the
meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on
the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast
Rud checking until it is clean.
The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds.
PULLING MISSED WITHHOLDS
Use: "Since the last time you were audited has a withhold been missed
on you'?"
"Since the last time you were audited is there anything someone
failed to find out about you?"
"Since the last time you were audited has someone nearly found out
something about you?"
Any of the above versions may be used. They are always run
repetitively. They
can also be used without the time limiter, e.g. "Is there anything someone
failed to find out about you?"
BODY OF SESSION.
8. Now go into the body of the session.
END BODY OF SESSION:
9. "Is it all right with you if we end off ...........now?" "Is there
anything you would care to ask or say before I do so?" "End of
........."
SMOOTH OUT SESSION:
10. Smooth out any roughness in the session if there has been any,
favouring Suppress, Failed to Reveal, Protest, Decide, Overts, Assert,
using prefix "In this session .......?"
GOALS & GAINS.
11. "Have you made any part of your goals for this session?"
"Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to
mention?"
HAVINGNESS:
12. (After adjusting the meter) "Please squeeze the cans." (If the
squeeze test was not all right, the Auditor would run the pc's
Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.)
ENDING SESSION:
13. "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this
session?"
14. "Is it all right with you if I end this session now?"
15. "Here it is: END OF SESSION (Tone 40). Has this session ended for
you?" (If the pc says, "No," repeat, "END OF SESSION." If the session
still has not ended, say, "You will be getting more auditing. END OF
SESSION.") "Tell me I am no longer auditing you."
Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends
to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a
degree out of the session.
Wording for the above follows the tradition of earlier model sessions.
Adhere severely to this session form. It is nearly an irreducible
minimum and is very fast, but it is all necessary.
The Random Rudiment here is "What happened?"
Session Mid Ruds are simply "Protest, Assert and Decide".
RI rudiments are "Suppress and Invalidate".
ARC Break handling is in accordance with HCO Bulletin of March 14,
1963. Don't continue a session until you find out why the ARC Break.
LRH:jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1963
CenOCon
Franchise
ALL AUDITING
STAR RATING HCO BULLETIN FOR ACADEMIES AND SHSBC
CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS
LUCKY IS THE PC WHOSE AUDITOR HAS UNDERSTOOD THIS HCO BULLETIN AND
LUCKY IS THE AUDITOR, MAY HIS OWN CASE RUN WELL.
I have just narrowed the reason for ARC Breaks in auditing actions down
to only one source.
RULE: ALL ARC BREAKS ARE CAUSED BY BY-PASSED CHARGE.
RULE: TO TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK FIND AND INDICATE THE CORRECT BY-
PASSED CHARGE.
Charge can be By-Passed by:
1 . Going later than basic on any chain without further search for
basic.
Example: Looking for the pc's first automobile accident, finding
the fifth instead and trying to run the fifth accident as the first
accident, which it isn't. The By-Passed Charge here is the first
accident and all succeeding accidents up to the one selected by the
auditor as the first one or the one to run. To a greater or lesser
degree depending on the amount the earlier material was
restimulated, the pc will then ARC Break (or feel low or in "low
morale"). One can run a later incident on a chain briefly but only
to unburden earlier incidents, and the pc must know this.
2. Unknowingly ignoring the possibility of a more basic or earlier
incident of the same nature as that being run after the pc has been
restimulated on it. Or bluntly refusing to admit the existence of
or let the pc "at" an earlier incident.
3. Cleanly missing a GPM, as one between two goals run
consecutively in the belief they are consecutive.
4. Missing an earlier GPM and settling down to the assertion there
are no earlier ones.
5. Cleanly missing one or more RIs, not even calling them.
6. Failing to discharge an RI and going on past it.
7. Accidentally missing a whole block of RIs, as in resuming
session and not noticing pc has skipped (commoner than you'd
think).
8. Accepting a wrong goal, missing the right one similarly worded.
9. Accepting a wrong RI, not getting the plot RI to fire.
10. Misinterpreting or not understanding data given to you by the
pc and/or acting on wrong data.
11. Misinforming the pc as to what has or has not fired and
discharged.
12. Locating the wrong By-Passed Charge and saying it is the source
of the ARC Break.
13. Failing to follow the cycle of communication in auditing.
These and any other way charge can be restimulated and left prior to
where the auditor is working can cause an ARC Break.
Charge left after (later) (nearer pt) than where the auditor is working
hardly ever causes an ARC Break.
The burden of skilled auditing then, is to get RIs (and GPMs and
incidents) discharged as close to basic (first incident) as possible. And
always be prowling for something earlier.
In contradiction of this is that any GPM fairly well discharged by RRs
unburdens the case, ARC Break or no ARC Breaks. And any incident partially
discharged lets one go earlier.
The pc never knows why the ARC Break. He may think he does and disclaim
about it. But the moment the actual reason is spotted (the real missed
area) the ARC Break ceases.
If you know you've missed a goal or RI, just saying so prevents any ARC
Break.
An ARC Breaky pc can always be told what has been missed and will
almost always settle down at once.
Example: Pc refuses to come to session. Auditor on telephone says
there's a more basic incident or RI or GPM. Pc comes to session.
The auditor who is most likely to develop ARC Breaks in the pc will
have greater difficulty putting this HCO Bulletin into practice. Perhaps I
can help this. Such an auditor Qs and As by action responses, not
acknowledgments after understanding. Action can be on an automaticity in
the session. So this HCO Bulletin may erroneously be interpreted to mean,
"If the pc ARC Breaks DO something earlier."
If this were true then the only thing left to run would be Basic Basic-
without the pc being unburdened enough to have any reality on it.
A drill (and many drills can be compiled on this) would be to have a
lineal picture of a Time Track. The coach indicates a late incident on it
with a pointer and says, "Pc ARC Break." The student must give a competent
and informative statement that indicates the earlier charge without
pointing (since you can't point inside the reactive bank of a pc with a
pointer).
Drawn Time Tracks showing a GPM, a series of engrams along free track,
a series of GPMs, all plotted against time, would serve the purpose of the
drill and give the student graphic ARC Break experience.
The trick is TO FIND AND INDICATE the RIGHT By-Passed Charge to the pc
and to handle it when possible but never fail to indicate it.
It is not DO that heals the ARC Break but pointing toward the correct
charge.
RULE: FINDING AND INDICATING AN INCORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE WILL NOT
TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK.
An automaticity (as covered later in this HCO Bulletin) is rendered
discharged by indicating the area of charge only.
This is an elementary example: Pc says, "I suppressed that." Auditor
says, "On this incident has anything been suppressed?" Pc ARC Breaks.
Auditor indicates Charge by saying, "I'm sorry. A moment ago I didn't
acknowledge your suppression." ARC Break ceases. Why? Because the source of
its charge that triggered an automaticity of above the pc's tone, was
itself discharged by being indicated.
Example: Auditor asks for a Joburg overt. Pc gives it. Auditor consults
meter at once asking question again, which is protested giving a new read.
Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor says, "I did not acknowledge the overt you gave me.
I acknowledge it." ARC Break ceases.
Example: Auditor asks for RI No. 173 on First Series Line Plot. Pc ARC
Breaks, giving various reasons why, such as auditor's personality. Auditor
asks meter, "Have I missed an Item on you?" Gets read. Says to pc, "I've
missed an Item." ARC Break ceases. Whether the missing item is looked for
or not is immaterial to this HCO Bulletin which concerns handling ARC
Breaks.
If an auditor always does in response to an ARC Break, such as
instantly looking for specific earlier Items, that auditor has missed the
point of this HCO Bulletin and will just pile up more ARC Breaks, not heal
them.
Don't be driven by ARC Breaks into unwise actions, as all you have to
do is find and indicate the missing charge that was By-Passed. That is what
takes care of an ARC Break, not taking the pc's orders.
If the ARC Break does not cease, the wrong By-Passed Charge has been
indicated.
The sweetest running pc in the world can be turned into a tiger by an
auditor who always Qs and As, never indicates charge and goes on with the
session plan.
Some Qs and As would be a source of laughter if not so deadly.
Here is a Q and A artist at work (and an ARC Breaky pc will soon
develop) (and this auditor will soon cease to audit because it's "so
unpleasant").
Example: Auditor: "Have you ever shot anyone?" Pc: "Yes, I shot a dog."
Auditor: "What about a dog?" Pc: "It was my mother's." Auditor: "What about
your mother?" Pc: "I hated her." Auditor: "What about hating people?" Pc:
"I think I'm aberrated." Auditor: "Have you worried about being aberrated?"
Pc: @!!*?!!.
Why did the pc ARC Break? Because the charge has never been permitted
to come off shooting a dog, his mother, hating people, and being aberrated
and that's enough By-Passed Charge to blow a house apart.
This pc will become, as this keeps up, unauditable by reason of charge
missed in sessions and his resulting session dramatizations as overts.
Find and indicate the actual charge By-Passed. Sometimes you can't miss
it, it has just happened. Sometimes you need a simple meter question since
what you are doing is obvious. Sometimes you need a dress parade assessment
from a list. But however you get it, find out the exact By-Passed Charge
and then INDICATE IT TO THE PC.
The violence of an ARC Break makes it seem incredible that a simple
statement will vanquish it, but it will. You don't have to run another
earlier engram to cure an ARC Break. You merely have to say it is there-and
if it is the By-Passed Charge, that ARC Break will vanish.
Example: Pc: "I think there's an incident earlier that turned off my
emotion." Auditor: "We'd better run this one again." Pc ARC Breaks.
Auditor: (Consults meter) "Is there an earlier incident that turns off
emotion? (Gets read) Say, what you just said is correct. Thank you. There
is an earlier incident that turns off emotion. Thank you. Now let's run
this one a few more times." Pc's ARC Break ends at once.
Don't go around shivering in terror of ARC Breaks. That's like the
modern systems of government which tear up their whole constitution and
honor just because some hired demonstrators howl. Soon they won't be a
government at all. They bend to every ARC Break.
ARC Breaks are inevitable. They will happen. The crime is not: to have
a pc ARC Break. The crime is: not to be able to handle one fast when it
happens. You must be
able to handle an ARC Break since they are inevitable. Which means you must
know the mechanism of one as given here, how to find By-Passed Charge and
how to smoothly indicate it.
To leave a pc in an ARC Break more than two or three minutes, is just
inept.
And be well-drilled enough that your own responding rancor and surprise
doesn't take charge. And you'll have pleasant auditing.
ARC BREAK PROCESSES
We had several ARC Break processes. These were repetitive processes.
The most effective ARC Break process is locating and indicating the By-
Passed Charge. That really cures ARC Breaks.
A repetitive command ARC Break process based on this discovery I just
made would possibly be "What communication was not received?"
Expanding this we get a new ARC Straight Wire:
"What attitude was not received?"
"What reality was not perceived (seen)?"
"What communication was not acknowledged?"
This process IS NOT USED to handle SESSION ARC BREAKS but only to clean
up auditing or the track. If the pc ARC Breaks don't use a process, find
the missed charge.
Indeed this process may be more valuable than at first believed, as one
could put "In auditing ......" on the front of each one and straighten up
sessions. And perhaps you could even run an engram with it. (The last has
not been tested. "In auditing" + the three questions was wonderful on test.
2 div TA in each 10 mins on a very high TA case.)
"ARC Break Straight Wire" of 1958 laid open implants like a band saw,
which is what attracted my attention to it again. Many routine prefixes
such as "In an organization" or "On engrams" or "On past lives" could be
used to clear up past attitudes and overts.
We need some repetitive processes today. Cases too queasy to face the
past, cases messed up by offbeat processes. Cases who have overts on
Auditing or Scientology or orgs. Cases pinned by session overts. The BMRs
run inside an engram tend to make it go mushy. And Class I Auditors are
without an effective repetitive process on modern technology. This is it.
A Repetitive Process, even though not looking for basic, implies that
the process will be run until the charge is off and therefore creates no
ARC Breaks unless left unflat. Therefore the process is safe if flattened.
RUDIMENTS
Nothing is more detested by some pcs than rudiments on a session or GPM
or RI. Why?
The same rule about ARC Breaks applies.
The Charge has been By-Passed. How?
Consider the session is later than the incident (naturally). Ask for
the suppress in the session. You miss the suppress in the incident (earlier
by far). Result: Pc ARC Breaks.
That's all there is to ARC Breaks caused by Session BMRs or Mid Ruds.
Example: "Scrambleable Eggs" won't RR. Auditor says, "On this Item has
anything been suppressed?" Pc eventually gets anxious or ARC Breaks. Why?
Suppress read. Yes, but where was the suppress? It was in the Incident
containing the RI, the pc looked for it in the session and thereby missed
the suppress charge in the incident of the RI which, being By-Passed Charge
unseen by pc and auditor, caused the ARC Break. Remedy? Get the suppress in
the incident, not the session. The RI RRs.
Also, the more ruds you use, the more you restimulate when doing
Routine 3, because the suppress in the incident is not basic on Suppress,
and if you clean just one clean, even to test, bang, there goes the charge
being missed on Suppress and bang, bang, ARC Break. Lightly, auditor,
lightly.
Q AND A ARC BREAKS
Q and A causes ARC Breaks by BY-PASSING CHARGE.
How? The pc says something. The auditor does not understand or
Acknowledge. Therefore the pc's utterance becomes a By-Passed Charge
generated by whatever he or she is trying to release. As the auditor
ignores it and the pc re-asserts it, the original utterance's charge is
built up and up.
Finally the pc will start issuing orders in a frantic effort to get rid
of the missed charge. This is the source of pc orders to the auditor.
Understand and Acknowledge the pc. Take the pc's data. Don't pester the
pc for more data when the pc is offering data.
When the pc goes to where the auditor commands, don't say, "Are you
there now?" as his going is thereby not acknowledged and the going built up
charge. Always assume the pc obeyed until it's obvious the pc did not.
ECHO METERING
The pc says, "You missed a suppress. It's ......" and the auditor
reconsults the meter asking for a suppress. That leaves the pc's offering
an undischarged charge.
NEVER ASK THE METER AFTER A PC VOLUNTEERS A BUTTON.
Example: You've declared suppress clean, pc gives you another suppress.
Take it and don't ask suppress again. That's Echo Metering.
If a pc puts his own ruds in, don't at once jump to the meter to put
his ruds in. That makes all his offerings missed charge. Echo Metering is
miserable auditing.
MISSED WITHHOLDS
Needless to say, this matter of By-Passed Charge is the explanation for
the violence of missed withholds.
The auditor is capable of finding out. So the pc's undisclosed overts
react solely because the auditor doesn't ask for them.
This doesn't wipe out all technology about missed withholds. It
explains why they exist and how they operate.
Indication is almost as good as disclosure. Have you ever had somebody
calm down when you said, "You've got missed withholds"? Well it's crude but
it has worked. Better is, "Some auditor failed to locate some charge on
your case." Or, "We must have missed your goal." But only a meter
assessment and a statement of what has been found would operate short of
actually pulling the missed withholds.
APPARENT BAD MORALE
There is one other factor on "Bad Morale" that should be remarked.
We know so much we often discard what we know in Scientology. But way back
in Book One and several times after, notably 8-80, we had a tone scale up
which the pc climbed as he was processed.
We meet up with this again running the Helatrobus Implants as a whole
track fact.
The pc rises in tone up to the lower levels of the tone scale. He or
she comes up to degradation, up to apathy.
And it often feels horrible and, unlike an ARC Break and the Sad
Effect, is not cured except by more of the same processing.
People complain of their emotionlessness. Well, they come up a long
ways before they even reach emotion.
Then suddenly they realize that they have come up to being able to feel
bad. They even come up to feeling pain. And all that is a gain. They don't
confuse this too much with ARC Breaks but they blame processing. And then
one day they realize that they can feel apathy! And it's a win amongst
wins. Before it was just wood.
And this has an important bearing on ARC Breaks.
Everything on the whole Know to Mystery Scale that still lies above the
pc finds the pc at effect. These are all on Automatic.
Therefore the pc in an ARC Break is in the grip of the reaction which
was in the incident, now fully on automatic.
The pc's anger in the incident is not even seen or felt by the pc. But
the moment something slips the pc is in the grip of that emotion as an
automaticity and becomes furious or apathetic or whatever toward the
auditor.
None is more amazed at himself or herself than the pc in the grip of
the ARC Break emotion. The pc is a helpless rag, being shaken furiously by
the emotions he or she felt in the incident.
Therefore, never discipline or Q and A with an ARC Broken pc. Don't
join hands with his bank to punish him. Just find the By-Passed Charge and
the automaticity will shut off at once to everyone's relief.
Running Routine 3 is only unpleasant and unhappy to the degree that the
auditor fails to quickly spot and announce By-Passed Charge. If he fails to
understand this and recognize this, his pcs will ARC Break as surely as a
ball falls when dropped.
If an auditor has ARC Breaky pcs only one thing is basically wrong-that
auditor consistently misses charge or consistently fails to anticipate
missed charge.
One doesn't always have to run the earliest. But one had better not
ignore the consequences of not pointing it out. One doesn't have to
discharge every erg from an RI always but one had better not hide the fact
from the pc.
The adroit auditor is one who can spot earlier charge or anticipate ARC
Breaks by seeing where charge is getting missed and taking it up with the
pc. That auditor's pcs have only the discomfort of the gradually rising
tone and not the mess of ARC Breaks.
It is possible to run almost wholly without ARC Breaks and possible to stop
them in seconds, all by following the rule: DON'T BY-PASS CHARGE UNKNOWN TO
THE PC.
LRH :jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6305C29 SHSBC-270 Programming Cases, Part 1
** 6305C30 SHSBC-271 Programming Cases, Part 2
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
THE TIME TRACK
AND
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
BULLETIN 2
HANDLING THE TIME TRACK
Although finding and curtailing the development of the Time Track at
genus is not improbable, the ability of the preclear to attain it early on
is questionable without reducing the charge on the existing track.
Therefore, any system which reduces the charged condition of the Time Track
without reducing but increasing the awareness and decisionability of the
preclear is valid processing. Any system which seeks to handle the charge
but reduces the preclear's awareness and decisionability is not valid
processing but is degrading.
According to early axioms, the single source of aberration is Time.
Therefore any system which further confuses or overwhelms the preclear's
sense of time will not be beneficial.
Thus the first task of the student of engram running is to master the
handling of Time on the preclear's Time Track. It must be handled without
question, uncertainty or confusion.
Failing to handle the Time in the pc's Time Track with confidence,
certainty and without error will result in grouping or denying the Time
Track to the pc.
The prime source of ARC break in engram running sessions is by-passing
charge by Time mishandling by the auditor. As a subhead under this, taking
and trying to run incidents which are not basic on a chain constitute an
error in Time and react on the pc like By-Passed RIs or GPMs.
An ARC break-less session requires gentle accurate time scouting, the
selection of the earliest Timed incident available and the accurate Time
handling of the incident as it is run.
There are only a few reasons why some cannot run engrams on pcs. These
are:
1. Q and A with the pain and unconsciousness of incidents;
2. Failing to handle the Time Track of the pc for the pc;
3. Failure to understand and handle Time.
2 and 3 are much the same. However, there are three ways to move a Time
Track about:
(a) By Significance (the moment something was considered);
(b) By Location (the moment the pc was located somewhere);
(c) By Time alone (the date or years before an event or years ago).
You will see all three have time in common. "The moment when you
thought _____" "The moment you were on the cliff______" "Two years before
you
put your foot on the bottom step of the scaffold" are all dependent on
Time. Each designates an instant on the Time Track of which there can be no
mistake by either auditor or pc.
The whole handling of the Time Track can be done by any one of these
three methods, Significance, Location, Time.
Therefore all projectionist work is done by the Time of Significance,
the Time of Location or Time alone.
The track responds. Those auditors who have trouble cannot grasp the
totality and accuracy and speed of that response. The idiotic and wonderful
precision of the Time Track defeats the sloppy and careless. They wonder if
it went. They question the pc's being there. They fumble about until they
destroy their command over the Time Track.
"Go to 47,983,678,283,736 years 2 months, 4 days 1 hour and six minutes
ago." Well, a clear statement of it, unfumbled, will cause just that to
happen. The tiniest quiver of doubt, a fumble over the millions and nothing
happens.
Fumbled dating gets no dates. One must date boldly with no throat
catches or hesitations. "More than 40,000? Less than 40,000?" Get it the
first read. Don't go on peering myopically at the meter asking the same
question the rest of the session. Accurate, Bold, Rapid. Those are the
watchwords of dating and Time Track handling.
In moving a Time Track about, move only the track. Don't mix it and
also move the pc. You can say "Move to ." You don't have to say (but
you can) "The somatic strip will move to ." But never say "You will
move to ." And this also applies to Present Time. The pc won't come
to Present Time. He's here. But the Time Track will move to the date of
present time unless the pc is really stuck. In getting a pc to Present Time
(unimportant in modern engram running) say "Move to (date month and year of
PT)."
In scouting you always use To. "Move To_____." In running an engram or
whatever, you always use THROUGH. "Move through the incident_____."
If an auditor hasn't a ruddy clue about the Time Track and its
composition, he or she won't ever be able to run engrams. So, obviously,
the first thing to teach and have passed in engram running is Time Track
Composition. When the auditor learns that, he or she will be able to run
engrams. If the auditor does not know the subject of the Time Track well,
then he or she can't be taught to run engrams, for no rote commands that
cover all cases can exist. You couldn't teach the handling of a motion
picture projector by rote commands if the operator had never imagined the
existence of film. An auditor sitting there thinking the pc is doing this
or that and being in a general fuddle about it will soon have film all over
the floor and wrapped about his ears. His plea for a rote command will just
tangle up more film so long as he doesn't know it is film and that he, not
the preclear, is handling it.
If an auditor can learn this, he will then be able to learn to run
those small parts of the Time Track called engrams. If an auditor can't run
a pc through some pleasant Time Track flawlessly, he or she sure can't run
a pc through the living lightning parts of that Track called Engrams.
An auditor who cannot handle the Time Track smoothly can scarcely call
himself an auditor as that's all there is to audit besides postulates, no
matter what process you are using, no matter what process you invent and
even if you tried what is laughingly called a "biochemical approach" to the
mind. There's only a Time Track for the bios to affect.
There's a thetan, there's a Time Track. The thetan gets caught in the
Time Track. The job of the auditor is to free the thetan by digging him out
of his Time Track. So if you can't handle what you're digging a thetan out
of, you're going to have an awful lot of landslides and a lot of auditing
loses for both you and preclears.
Invent games, devices, charts and training aids galore and teach with them
and you'll have auditors who can handle the Time Track and run engrams.
CHARGE AND THE TIME TRACK
Charge, the stored quantities of energy in the Time Track, is the sole
thing that is being relieved or removed by the auditor from the Time Track.
When this charge is present in huge amounts the Time Track overwhelms
the pc and the pc is thrust below observation of the actual Track.
This is the State of Case Scale. (All levels given are major levels.
Minor levels exist between them.)
Level ( 1 ) NO TRACK - No Charge.
Level (2) FULL VISIBLE TIME TRACK - Some Charge.
Level (3) SPORADIC VISIBILITY OF
TRACK - Some heavily charged areas.
Level (4) INVISIBLE TRACK - Very heavily charged areas
(Black or Invisible Field) exist.
Level (5) DUB-IN - Some areas of Track so
heavily charged pc is
below consciousness
in them.
Level (6) DUB-IN OF DUB-IN - Many areas of Track
so heavily charged, the
Dub-in is submerged.
Level (7) ONLY AWARE OF OWN - Track too heavily charged
EVALUATIONS to be viewed at all.
Level (8) UNAWARE - Pc dull, often in a coma.
On this new scale the very good, easy to run cases are at Level (3).
Skilled engram running can handle down to Level (4). Engram running is
useless from Level (4) down. Level (4) is questionable.
Level ( 1 ) is of course an OT. Level (2) is the clearest clear anybody
ever heard of. Level (3) can run engrams. Level (4) can run early track
engrams if the running is skilled. (Level (4) includes the Black V case.)
Level (5) has to be run on general ARC processes. Level (6) has to be run
carefully on special ARC processes with lots of havingness. Level (7)
responds to the CCHs. Level (8) responds only to reach and withdraw CCHs.
Pre-Dianetic and Pre-Scientology mental studies were observations from
Level (7) which considered Levels (5) and (6) and (8) the only states of
case and oddly enough overlooked Level (7) entirely, all states of case
were considered either neurotic or insane, with sanity either slightly
glimpsed or decried.
In actuality on some portion of every Time Track in every case you will
find each of the Levels except (l ) momentarily expressed. The above scale
is devoted to chronic case level and is useful in Programming a case. But
any case for brief moments or longer will hit these levels in being
processed. This is the Temporary Case Level found only in sessions on
chronically higher level cases when they go through a tough bit.
Thus engram running can be seen to be limited to higher level cases.
Other processing, notably modern ARC processes, moves the case up to engram
running.
Now what makes these levels of case?
It is entirely charge. The more heavily charged the case, the lower it
falls on the above scale. It is charge that prevents the pc from
confronting the Time Track and submerges the Time Track from view.
Charge is stored energy or stored or recreatable potentials of energy.
The E-Meter registers charge. A very high or low tone arm, a sticky or
dirty needle, all are registrations of this charge. The "chronic meter of a
case" is an index of chronic charge. The fluctuations of a meter during a
session are registering relative charge in different portions of the pc's
Time Track.
More valuably the meter registers released charge. You can see it
blowing on the meter. The disintegrating RR, the blowing down of the TA,
the heavy falls, the loosening needle all show charge being released.
The meter registers charge found and then charge released. It registers
charge found but not yet released by the needle getting tight, by DN, by a
climbing TA or a TA going far below the clear read. Then as this cleans up,
the charge is seen to "blow".
Charge that is restimulated but not released causes the case to "charge
up", in that charge already on the Time Track is triggered but is not yet
viewed by the pc. The whole cycle of restimulated charge that is then blown
gives us the action of auditing. When prior charge is restimulated but not
located so that it can be blown, we get "ARC Breaks".
The State of Case, the Chronic Level, as given on the above scale, is
the totality of charge on the case. Level (I) has no charge on it. Level
(8) is total charge. The day to day condition of a case, its temper,
reaction to things, brightness, depends upon two factors, (a) the totality
of charge on the case and (b) the amount of charge in restimulation. Thus a
case being processed varies in tone by (a) the totality of charge remaining
on the case (b) the amount of charge in restimulation and (c) the amount of
charge blown by processing.
Charge is held in place by the basic on a chain. When only later than
basic incidents are run charge can be restimulated and then bottled up
again with a very small amount blown. This is known as "grinding out" an
incident. An engram is getting run, but as it is not basic on a chain, no
adequate amount of charge is being released.
Later than basic incidents are run either (a) to uncover more basic
(earlier) incidents or (b) to clean up the chain after basic has been found
and erased.
No full erasure of incidents later than basic is possible, but charge
can be removed from them providing they are not ground out but only run
lightly a time or two and then an earlier incident on the chain found and
similarly run. When the basic is found it is erased by many passes over it.
Basic is the only one which can be run many times. The later the incident
is (the further from basic) the more lightly it is run.
There is no difference in the technology required to run a basic or a
later incident. It is only the number of times THROUGH that differs. Basic
is run through many times. A somewhat later engram is run through a couple
of times. An engram very late on the chain is gone through once. Otherwise
all engrams whether basic or not are run exactly the same.
Engrams are run to release Charge from a case. Charge is not released
to cure the body or to cure anything physical and the meter cures nothing.
Charge is released entirely to return to a thetan his causation over the
Time Track, to restore his power of choice, and to free him of his most
intimate trap, his own Time Track. You cannot have decent, honest or
capable beings as long as they are trapped and overwhelmed. While this
philosophy may be contrary to the intentions of a slavemaster or a degrader
it is nevertheless demonstrably true. The universe is not itself a trap
capable only of degradation. But beings exist who, beaten and overwhelmed
themselves, can utilize this universe to degrade others.
The mission of engram running is to free the charge which has accumulated
in a being and so restore that being to appreciated life.
All cases, sooner or later, have to be run on engrams, no matter what
else has to be done. For it is in engrams that the bulk of the charge on
the Time Track lies. And it is therefore those parts of the Time Track
called engrams which overwhelm the thetan. These contain pain and
unconsciousness and are therefore the record of moments when a thetan was
most at effect and least at cause. In these moments then the thetan is
least able to confront or to be causative.
The engram also contains moments when it was necessary to have moved
and most degrading to have held a position in space.
And the engram contains the heaviest ARC Break with a thetan's
environment and other beings.
And all these things add up to charge, an impulse to withdraw from that
which can't be withdrawn from or to approach that which can't be
approached, and this, like a two pole battery, generates current. This
constantly generated current is chronic charge. The principal actions are:
(a) When the attention of the thetan is directed broadly in the direction
of such a track record the current increases.
(b) When the attention is more closely (but not forcefully) and
accurately directed, the current is discharged.
(c) When the basic on the chain is found and erased, that which composes
the poles themselves is erased and later incidents eased, for no
further generation is possible by that chain and it becomes incapable
of producing further charge to be restimulated. The above are the
actions which occur during auditing. If these actions do not occur
despite auditing, then there is no case betterment, so it is the
auditor's responsibility to make sure they do occur.
As the Time Track is created by an involuntary response of the thetan,
it is and exists as a real thing, composed of space, matter, energy, time
and significance. On a Level (8) Case the Time Track is completely
submerged by charge even down to a total unawareness of thought itself. At
Level (7) awareness of the track is confined by extant charge to opinions
about it. At Level (6) charge on the track is such that pictures of
pictures of the track are gratuitously furnished, causing delusive copies
of inaccurate copies of the track. At Level (5) charge is sufficient to
cause only inaccurate copies of the track to be viewable. At Level (4)
charge is sufficient to obscure the track. At Level (3) charge is
sufficient to wipe out portions of the track. At Level (2) there is only
enough charge to maintain the existence of the track. At Level (1) there is
no charge and no track to create it. All charge from Level (1) and up into
higher states that is generated is knowingly generated by the thetan, whose
ability to hold locations in space and poles apart results in charge as
needful. This would degenerate again as he put such matters on automatic or
began once more to make a Time Track, but these actions alone are not
capable of aberrating a thetan until he encounters further violent
degradation and entrapment in the form of implants. Aberration itself must
be calculated to occur. The existence of a Time Track only makes it
possible for it to occur and be retained. Thus a thetan's first real
mistake is to consider his own pictures and their recorded events
important, and his second mistake is in not obliterating entrapment
activities in such a way as not to become entrapped or aberrated in doing
so, all of which can be done and should be.
Engram running is a step necessary to get at the more fundamental
causes of a Time Track and handle them.
So it is a skill which must be done and done well.
LRH: dr jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6306C11 SHSBC-272 Engram Chain Running
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JUNE AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 3
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
BULLETIN 3
ROUTINE 3-R
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
Given a knowledge of the Composition and Behaviour of the Time Track,
engram running by chains is so simple that any auditor begins by
overcomplication. You almost can't get uncomplicated enough in engram
running.
In teaching people to run engrams in 1949, my chief despair was summed
up in one sentence to the group I was instructing: "All auditors talk too
much." And that's the first lesson.
The second lesson is: "All auditors acknowledge too little." Instead of
cheerily acking what the pc said and saying "continue", auditors are always
asking for more data, and usually for more data than the pc ever could
give. Example: Pc: "I see a house here." Auditor: "Okay. How big is it?"
That's not engram running, that's just a lousy Q and A.
The proper action is: Pc: "I see a house here." Auditor: "Okay.
Continue."
The exceptions to this rule are non-existent. This isn't a special
brand of engram running. It is modern engram running. It was the first
engram running and is the last and you can put aside any complications in
between.
The auditor is permitted ONE question per each new point of track and
that is ALL. Example: Auditor: "Move to the beginning of the 88 plus
trillion year incident. (Waits a moment.) What do you see?" Pc: "It's all
murky." Auditor: "Good. Move through the incident."
Wrong Example: Auditor: "Move to the beginning of the 88 plus trillion
year incident. (Waits a moment.) What do you see?" Pc: "It's all murky."
Auditor: "Can you see anything in the murk?" FLUNK! FLUNK! FLUNK!
The rule is ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THE PC SAYS AND TELL HIM TO CONTINUE.
Then there's the matter of being doubtful of control. Wrong Example:
Auditor: "Move to yesterday. Are you there? How do you know it's yesterday?
What do you see that makes you think ...." FLUNK FLUNK FLUNK.
Right Example: Auditor: "Move to yesterday. (Waits a moment.) What do
you see? .....Good."
Another error is a failure to take the pc's data. You take the pc's
data. Never take his orders.
Right Example: Auditor (meter dating): "Is it greater than eighteen
trillion, less than eighteen trillion (gets contradictory reads or a DN).
(Off meter.) Are you thinking of something?" Pc: "It's less than 18
trillion." Auditor: "Thank you. (On meter.) Is it greater than seventeen
trillion five hundred billion. Less than ...." Pc: "It's seventeen
trillion, nine hundred and eight billion, four hundred and six million,
ninety-five thousand, seven hundred and six years ago." Auditor (having
alertly written it all down): "Thank you." (Ends dating.)
Wrong Example: Auditor: "Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than
eighteen tr...." Pc: "It's less than eighteen trillion." Auditor: "OK. Is
it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen ...." FLUNK FLUNK
FLUNK.
In dating, the pc's contrary data unspoken and untaken can give you a
completely wrong date. Your data comes from the pc and the meter always for
anything. And if the pc's data is invalidated you won't get a meter's data.
If the pc says he has a PTP and the meter says he doesn't, you take the
pc's data that he does. In dating, an argument with the pc can group the
track.
So take the pc's data. And if the pc is a dub-in, you should be running
the ARC processes not engrams anyway as the case is over-charged for
engrams. If the pc isn't a dubin then the pc's data is quite reliable.
Also, minimize a pc's dependency on a meter. Don't keep confirming a
pc's data by meter read with, "That reads. Yes, that's there. Yes, there's
a rocket read ...." Just let the pc find his own reality in running an
engram. "All auditors talk too much." You can date on a meter but only so
long as the pc doesn't cognite on the date. You can help a pc identify or
choose an area of track but only if he specifically asks you to. Example:
Pc: "I've got two pictures here. Can you find out which one is the earlier?
One is of a freight engine, the other is a whole train." Auditor: (on
meter) "Is the freight engine earlier than the whole train? Is the whole
train earlier than the freight engine? (To pc) The whole train reads as
earlier."
Now, however, if the pc has two facsimiles, your problem is only that
you've missed something.
RULE: WHENEVER CHARGE IS MISSED THE TIME TRACK TENDS TO GROUP.
This does not mean the Auditor has to do something about it unless the
pc gets confused and asks for help, at which time the only action is to
spot on the meter what charge has been missed and tell the pc.
ARC BREAKS
All Routine 3 ARC Breaks, including R3-N and R3-R, are handled the same
way, an exact way. There is no deviation from this.
If the pc becomes critical of anything outside the engram (room,
auditor, Scientology, the technology) it is an ARC Break. ARC Breaks are of
greater and lesser magnitude ranging throughout the misemotional band of
the tone scale.
The handling of ARC Breaks always follows this rule:
ARC BREAK RULE l: IF THE PC ARC BREAKS, ISSUE NO FURTHER AUDITING
COMMANDS UNTIL BOTH PC AND AUDITOR ARE SATISFIED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE ARC
BREAK HAS BEEN LOCATED AND INDICATED.
Do not issue more orders, do not run a process, do not offer to run a
process, do not sit idly letting the pc ARC Break. Follow this rule.
ARC BREAK RULE 2: WHEN A PC ARC BREAKS OR CAN'T GO ON FOR ANY REASON,
DO AN R3-R ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT AND LOCATE AND INDICATE TO THE PC THE BY-
PASSED CHARGE.
The only harm that can be done in R3-R (or R3-N) is issuing further
orders to the pc or trying to run something before the by-passed charge has
been located and indicated.
Given this handling of ARC Breaks and an exact adherence to the rote of
R3-R, all former problems of engram running vanish!
EARLY ENGRAM RUNNING
No auditor who knew earlier than June 1963 engram running should
consider he or she knows how to run engrams.
Routine 3-R is itself. It has no dependence on earlier methods of
running engrams. Failure to study and learn R3-R "because one knows about
engram running" will cause a lot of case failure.
Early engram running was often attempted on cases below Case Level 4.
The technology, further, was too varied. Too much was demanded of the pc.
Too little effort was put into finding the basic on a chain. Too many
forcing techniques were used. Too often the auditor ran just any engram he
could get. These and other faults prevented engrams from being run.
R3-R is a rote procedure. That is a victory in itself. But it is a
better procedure.
If you know old-time engram running, there is no attempt here to
invalidate you or that knowledge or make you wrong in any way. Those are
all ways to run engrams and gave you a better grasp on it. I only wish to
call to your attention that R3-R is not old-time engram running but is a
Scientology Routine designed to achieve the state of OT and is not designed
for any other use than freeing the spirit of man.
Therefore, study and use R3-R and don't mix it with any earlier data on
engram running. Anything you know about engram running will help you
understand R3-R. But it won't help your pc if mixed in with R3-R. I
couldn't put this too strongly. You'll trace any failure in the auditor
with R3-R to:
1. Inability to execute the auditing cycle;
2. Inability to run a session;
3. Failure to study and understand the Time Track;
4. Failure to follow R3-R exactly without deviation;
5. Failure to handle ARC Breaks as above;
6. Using R3-R on lower level cases not prepared by pre-engram
running processes.
ROUTINE 3-R
Engram Running by Chains is designated "Routine 3-R" to fit in with
other modern processes.
It is a triumph of simplicity. It does not demand visio, sonic or other
perception at once by the pc. It develops them.
The ordinary programming of the lowest level case would be Reach and
Withdraw Processes, CCHs, Repetitive Processes, R3-R, R3-N, R3-R.
Routine 3-R is the process that leads to Case Level 2. Only some
additional exercises are needed, then, to attain the next level, OT.
So R3-R is the fundamental bridge step to OT. And we're going only for
OT now for various reasons including political. We have by-passed clear
which remains only as a courtesy title denoting one or more GPMs run.
Many cases, even the Black V, can begin at once on R3-R.
R3-R BY STEPS
R3-R is run in the 3N model session.
PRELIMINARY STEP.
Establish the type of chain the pc is to run by assessment.
STEP ONE.
Locate the first incident by dating.
STEP TWO:
Move pc to the incident with the exact command, "Move to (date)."
STEP THREE:
Establish duration (length of time) of incident.
(An incident may be anything from a split second long to 15 trillion
trillion years or more long.)
STEP FOUR:
Move pc to beginning of incident with the exact command, "Move to the
beginning of the incident at (date)." Wait until meter flicks.
STEP FIVE.
Ask pc what he or she is looking at with the exact command, "What do
you see?" (If pc's eyes are open, tell pc first, "Close your eyes.")
Acknowledge whatever pc says.
Do not ask a second question, ever.
STEP SIX:
Send the pc through the incident with the exact command, "Move through
the incident to a point (duration-) later."
STEP SEVEN:
Ask nothing, say nothing, do nothing (except observe meter or make
quiet notes) while pc is going through the incident. If the pc says
anything at all, just acknowledge and let him continue, using this
exact command softly, "Okay, Continue. "
Do not coax, distract, or question pc during this period.
Exception: only if the pc ARC Breaks, take action and then only do the
R3-R ARC Break Assessment.
If the pc gets stuck, bounces, gets into another incident or if the
somatic strip sticks or refuses to obey the auditor, only do an ARC
Break Assessment. Do not force the pc onward by any command or
question.
STEP EIGHT:
When the pc reaches the end of the incident (usually pc moves or looks
up) say only, "What happened?"
Take whatever pc says, acknowledge only as needful. Say nothing else,
ask nothing else. When pc has told little or much and has finished
talking, give a final acknowledgement.
STEP NINE:
Repeat exactly and only Steps Two to Eight.
Continue to do so until pc either
(a) Spots an earlier incident or
(b) Gets no change on a run through the incident from the run
just before.
In event of either (a) or (b) do Steps One to Eight exactly and only on
the new incident.
STEP TEN:
At the end of any session of R3-R leave the pc where he is on the time
track. Do not attempt to bring the pc to present time or take the pc to
a rest point, as these actions may very well by-pass charge. End any R3-
R session with very careful goals, gains (as the pc is usually rather
anaten) and any needed havingness, but keep the havingness very brief,
only enough to restore can squeeze. Do not end a session on a boil-off
or ARC Break.
STEP ELEVEN:
At the beginning of any new R3-R session, if you finished the last
engram you were working on, begin precisely and anew with Step One. If
you are still working on an engram already found, begin precisely with
Step Four and carry on.
STEP TWELVE:
If the pc gets into trouble in the session do not use Mid Ruds or ask
for missed withholds. Mid Ruds will mush an engram. Missed withholds,
unless found as part of the ARC Break Assessment, may move the pc
violently about through recently found engrams.
Do only the ARC Break Assessment, and locate and indicate charge
accordingly if the session goes wrong.
(Since the last time I audited you Mid Ruds and missed withholds are
permissible at session start before any R3-R action is taken in that
session.)
STEP THIRTEEN:
When encountering a goals engram such as the Helatrobus Implants lay
aside R3-R and use R3-N.
When encountering a goals engram prior to the Helatrobus Implants or
subsequent to them use R3-M2 but only when such an engram has RIs.
STEP FOURTEEN.
When Basic on any chain is found flatten it fully and permit it to be
stripped of any lock engrams or earlier incidents that appear. (In
finding basics remember that the Time Track by my most recent
measurements considerably exceeds a trillion, trillion, trillion years.
Basics may occur as early as they occur but seldom nearer PT than 200
trillion years ago, and quite ordinarily at 15 trillion, trillion years
ago.)
END OF STEPS
There is no variation of these steps for any reason. This is the most
exact procedure known. And there you have it, rote engram running,
superior to any engram running ever done and giving superior and faster
results.
Future HCO Bulletins will expand the reasons for these steps, give
exact methods of dating, give the ARC Break Assessment for R3-R, the
assessment for types of chains,
and the administration.
LRH :jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6306C12 SHSBC-273 ARC Straightwire
** 6306C13 SHSBC-274 Levels of Case
** 6306C18 SHSBC-275 Beingness
** 6306C19 SHSBC-276 Summary of Modern Auditing
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JUNE AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2H
ARC BREAKS BY ASSESSMENT
This is not just a training process. It is a very valuable unlimited
process that undercuts Repetitive Processes and produces tone arm action on
cases that have none on repetitive processes.
R2H, however, is a training must before an auditor is permitted to run
engrams. It does not have to be run on a pc before engrams are run. Only
when an auditor can produce results with R2H should he or she run engrams
on any pc. For R2H combines the most difficult steps of engram running,
dating, assessing, locating and indicating by-passed charge. If an auditor
can date skillfully and quickly handle ARC Breaks (and handle the Time
Track) he or she is a safe auditor on R3R. If not, that auditor will not
produce results with R3R or make any OTs.
In Academies and the SHSBC, R2H is placed after skill is attained in
Model Session and repetitive processes. In auditing programming R2H comes
immediately after Reach and Withdraw and the CCHs.
For sweetening a pc's temper and life, R2H has had no equal for cases
above but not including level 8.
ARC stands for the Affinity-Reality-Communication triangle from which
comes the Tone Scale and is best covered by the booklet "Notes on
Lectures".
By-passed charge is covered very fully in recent HCOBs on ARC Breaks.
R2H BY STEPS
The auditing actions of Routine 2H are complex and must be done with
great precision.
The actions are done in Routine 3 Model Session. Mid Ruds and Missed
Withholds may be used.
STEP ONE:
Tell the pc, "Recall an ARC Break."
When pc has done so acknowledge that the pc has done so. Do not ask the
pc what it is. If pc says what it is, simply acknowledge. It is no business
of R2H to know what the ARC Break consists of!
STEP TWO:
Date the ARC Break on the meter. If the pc volunteers the date do not
verify it on the meter further. Accept it at once and write it down. The
date is more important than the content of the ARC Break.
STEP THREE:
Assess the ARC Break for by-passed charge, using the attached list.
Find the greatest read.
The assessment is seldom gone over more than once as a whole and those
that read are then read again until one remains.
This is a rapid action on the meter. Look only for tiny ticks or falls
or a small left to right slash of the needle. Do not expect large
reactions. The Mark V meter is indispensable.
STEP FOUR:
Indicate to the pc what charge was missed in that ARC Break he or she
has recalled .
The pc must be satisfied that that was the charge missed.
The pc may try to recall what it was that was indicated. This is not a
vital part of the drill but THE PC MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE LOCATED BY-
PASSED CHARGE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ARC BREAK.
There is a danger here of a great deal of auditor ad-libbing and
tanglefoot. If the pc is not satisfied and happier about it, the wrong by-
passed charge has been found and Step Three must be re-done.
It is no part of this process to run an engram or secondary thus
located.
THE ASSESSMENT FORM
This is a sample form. It may be necessary to add to it. Some lines of
it may eventually be omitted. However, this form does work. The auditor may
add a few lines to it.
In asking the questions preface the whole assessment with, "In the ARC
Break you recalled_____." Do not preface each question so unless pc goes
adrift.
A dirty needle means pc has started to speculate. Ask, "Have you
thought of anything?" and clean needle.
Had an engram been missed? Had a withhold been missed'? Had some
emotion been rejected'? Had some affection been rejected? Had a reality
been rejected? Had a communication been ignored? Had a similar incident
occurred before? Had a goal been disappointed? Had some help been rejected?
Was an engram restimulated? Had an overt been committed? Had an overt been
contemplated? Had an overt been prevented? Was there a secret?
Routine 2H is a skilled operation. Practice gives the auditor a knack
of doing it rapidly.
An ARC Break should be disposed of about every fifteen minutes of
auditing
time. Longer shows ineptitude.
LRH:dr.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6306C20 SHSBC-277 History of Psychotherapy
** 6306C25 SHSBC-278 Routine 2H
** 6306C26 SHSBC-279 TVD-22, Listing Assessment for Engram
Running, 1
** 6306C27 SHSBC-280 TVD-23, Listing Assessment for Engram Running,
2
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JULY AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 3R
BULLETIN 4
PRELIMINARY STEP
The R3R Preliminary Step is done to assure that the correct incident
chain is run on the pc for that pc.
Many chains, locks, secondaries and engrams, are available on any pc.
But some of them are beyond the pc's reality and ability and some of them
are too featherweight to get any case gain.
The basic problem in starting a case on R3R is to run the pc on a chain
that will (a) improve the case, (b) hold the pc's interest, (c) be within
the pc's current ability to handle.
The establishing of the correct chain was a missing element in all
earlier engram running. Almost any pc from Level 7 upwards could have run
engrams if the exact chain necessary to resolve the case could have been
established. This is accomplished now by an accurate assessment using a
sensitive E-Meter and the following form and procedure.
It does not matter if the pc begins on a chain of locks, secondaries or
engrams so long as running it does (a), (b) and (c) above. You do not have
to specify in R3R whether you are running engrams, secondaries or locks.
The word "Incident" covers all.
Also, it does not matter if the pc stays within this lifetime or goes
whole track so long as the assessed chain is followed and a basic
eventually discovered for it. The chain leads where the chain leads.
But once having found the proper chain the auditor must follow that
chain, not skip about. To do this, the auditor, when asking for an earlier
incident in later R3R steps always specifies the proper chain found in this
assessment by the Level + Item result of this Preliminary Step Assessment.
For example, if the chain found here in the Preliminary Step is "Decisions
to die" (Level found = Decided + Item Found = To die), one obtains earlier
incidents by always saying, "Is the next earlier decision to die more than
.......years ago? Less than .......years ago?"
Thus the result obtained in the Preliminary Step is used on and on
until an actual basic is reached. This may be fifty or more engrams run and
perhaps even some R3N in the middle of the chain if the chain leads into a
GPM by normal rote use of R3R.
When a basic is reached and discharged and the chain being run now
gives little or no TA action (or even free needle), a new Preliminary Step
is done. But until that happens, this Preliminary Step is not repeated with
the other steps. Once it has happened (a basic found and run), however, a
new Preliminary Step is done exactly as given here for the first chain
assessment.
You find the chain.
You run engram after engram on that chain (or lock after lock or
secondary after secondary) .
You find a basic.
You run the basic thoroughly.
With TA action now gone on the chain found you do a new Preliminary
Step.
RULE: TA ACTION EXISTS ON THE CORRECT CHAIN.
RULE: A CHAIN ONCE ASSESSED MUST BE FULLY RUN.
RULE: TA ACTION CEASES ON A DISCHARGED CHAIN.
RULE: A NEW ASSESSMENT IS DONE ONLY WHEN A CHAIN IS DISCHARGED.
RULE: ANY PROPERLY ASSESSED CHAIN WILL PRODUCE TA ACTION.
RULE: IF A CHAIN ASSESSED DOES NOT PRODUCE IMMEDIATE TA ACTION WITH
SKILLED R3R THE ASSESSMENT (OR THE RESULTING QUESTION FORMED) IS INCORRECT.
The exact procedure of assessment is:
1. Assess pc by elimination as below for a R3R Form Level.
2. List the Form Level found to a completed List.
3. Nul the completed list to a single subject.
4. Use the Form Level plus subject to designate the character of
the incident to be found every time an incident is looked for.
All rules of listing as developed in R2-12 apply to this Preliminary
Step. They are not repeated here.
One is not looking for RRs or RSes in the Preliminary Step Assessment.
Any type of read is valid.
ARC BREAKS
When doing this step of R3R use the ARC Break Assessment for Listing
Form, not the R3R ARC Break Assessment Form. The main sources of ARC Breaks
in the Preliminary Step are:
1. Wrong level assessed.
2. The listed list incomplete.
3. The wrong Item taken from the list.
4. A former chain or engram abandoned to do a new assessment.
5. Earlier levels restimulated (old Pre-Hav auditing).
6. Earlier listing restimulated.
Such forms will be published from time to time as they tend to change and
improve.
EARLIER ASSESSMENTS DONE
The very earliest assessment (1948) used was "What the pc could see"
when he closed his or her eyes. This was then run.
This was followed by an arbitrary method of assigning necessary
incidents to be run such as birth and prenatals.
The next earliest assessment ( 1949) was to ask each time for "the
incident necessary to resolve the case". An automaticity known as the "File
Clerk" was depended upon, impinged into action by finger snapping.
The next period ( 1951) concerned whole track exploration running
whatever you could get to read on a meter.
The next period (1952) concerned overt engrams located by what the pc
seemed to be doing physically.
This ended the Dianetic period where engrams were run to clear but
mainly to cure psychosomatic illnesses.
Variations of these assessments were revived from time to time in
Dianetic uses culminating in the 5th London ACC where overt engrams were
run with confront and
great stress was laid on getting the postulates out of them. The meter and
shrewd guesses played their part in assessments.
Up to this time there was a great dependence on "insight" and judgment.
We were barred to some degree by my own ability to see other people's
pictures which made engram running very easy for me to do, along with my
general knowledge of the whole track and the mind. This led me to be very
hard to convince that engram assessment was a subject at all or that most
auditors couldn't do it.
With the advent of Scientology with its complete shift from Dianetic
goals, healing went out as a reason for running engrams and concern about
the body vanished as an auditing target. This led to stresses on
exteriorization of the spirit, moving it away from the body. As the
reactive bank was thought to be part of the body, its engrams received no
further attention.
Eventually I discovered that the thetan had engrams and that these were
being automatically (involuntarily) created by him.
Engram running has vanished as a healing process. Engram handling by
chains has emerged as an entirely reoriented subject, not even vaguely
connected with the body and with the target not of a human clear but of
Operating Thetan.
The assessment for engram chains (or any kind of chain) emerges finally
in Routine 3R. This assessment technology from beginning to end is
Scientology. None of it was ever heard of in Dianetics. Therefore we have
crossed a bridge. I have finally understood that precise assessment is
vital for an auditor and that an auditor can learn the exact chain to be
run on the pc without any intuition or second sight and that even my own
auditing is bettered thereby, and that the thetan cannot be freed and re-
empowered without an assessment and rote technology for engram running.
This is R3R.
The earliest R3R assessment for chains was done by pc interest and the
button Protested. The pc was merely asked, "In this Lifetime what have you
protested?" and with no listing, whatever the pc said and seemed interested
in was taken.
This however did not often produce adequate TA action when the chain
was then run.
The next improvement was using the 18 Prepcheck buttons. This drew a
blank on some pcs, no level reacting.
Accordingly, I then developed a new Pre-Hav Scale, based mainly on
flows. It is Protest that is basically responsible for making a mental
image picture. However, very few cases are up to this level. In order to
bring more levels of case under engram running and to get more TA action
for any case, I developed this Preliminary Step Scale.
The present scale takes some account of (1) The old Pre-Hav Scale, (2)
The Know-to-Mystery Scale, (3) The Chart of Attitudes, (4) The 18 Buttons
and (5) The Flows Scale, as well as some old well-known buttons.
Several possible levels (such as Create) have been left out because
they would go at once into the GPM or Implant Goals. It may not be
important that they do. Indeed, with experience we may even come to guide
the pc at them. But for the moment they are left out.
There would be nothing wrong in borrowing further from these sources to
draw up a longer Preliminary Step Scale, but I think this should cover most
pcs.
The three most important visible factors in R3R are:
(a) Pc's interest.
(b) Tone Arm Action.
(c) The ability of the pc to run the incidents.
If the auditor can see these he knows his Preliminary Assessment was
right.
Interest does not mean happiness and joy. Interest is only absorbed
attention and a desire to talk about it. Tears, terror or agony may be
present without the Interest factor
being absent. A chain of engrams is expected to produce pain and anaten. A
chain of secondaries is expected to produce misemotion. These have nothing
in them to head an auditor off a chain.
Equally, significance and story content have no bearing on the
rightness or wrongness of a chain selected. They are entirely incidental to
judging the correctness of a chain.
All the auditor is interested in is whether (a) the pc is interested;
(b) the TA action is good and (c) can the pc run the incidents on the chain
with correct and exact R3 R.
That careless auditing and bad R3R can influence (c), leaves us with
only two exact criteria for a correct assessment:
(a) Pc's Interest and
(b) TA Action while running incidents.
Only these two things tell us the assessment was right. The assessment
can be right and unskilled R3R can wreck both in the later steps, a fact
which has to be taken into account in reviewing cases in progress.
R3R ASSESSMENT
This is the Assessment for R3R Preliminary Step.
In this form will be recognized the old Pre-Hav Scales and others, but
improved for the purpose of engram chain assessment.
This assessment must be done accurately. It is hard to do if the pc
doesn't understand a level during assessment, is startled by one or
disagrees. These will make the assessment inaccurate. If the assessment is
inaccurately done, the pc will ARC Break or the resulting engram chain will
not give TA action when being run.
The final level assessed will probably give TA action at once when
found if right.
The key sentence in assessing is "In this lifetime have you mainly
.......(level)." This is repeated for each level called. Levels are called
once, as in ordinary elimination. Those that stayed in are reassessed
the same way. The one form can be used for many additional assessments on
the same pc as chains are run out.
The use of this form brings R3R down to Case Level 7 in workability. A
chain of engrams being run must give TA action. If none is present in
running engrams and the TA stays high or low the assessment was wrong.
The level found here is used to make and complete a list with the
question, "In this lifetime what have you .....(level found)?" "In this
lifetime" is used not because we only want chains in this lifetime but to
keep pc from going all over the track during the preliminary assessment,
this making it too long. The chain you want comes into this lifetime. All
rules of listing apply as in R2-12A in doing this list.
In event of an ARC Break while doing the Preliminary Step, use the ARC
Break Assessment for Listing.
If needle dirties up in assessing this form, give form to pc and ask
"What happened?" and if that fails, get in BMRs "On this Assessment".
SUPPRESSED WITHHELD
FAILED TO SUPPRESS FAILED TO WITHHOLD
NOT SUPPRESSED NOT WITHHELD
INVALIDATED PROTESTED
FAILED TO INVALIDATE FAILED TO PROTEST
NOT INVALIDATED NOT PROTESTED
BEEN CAREFUL WITHDRAWN
FAILED TO BE CAREFUL FAILED TO WITHDRAW
NOT BEEN CAREFUL NOT WITHDRAWN
SUGGESTED CONVINCED
FAILED TO SUGGEST FAILED TO CONVINCE
NOT SUGGESTED NOT CONVINCED
PROVEN AGREED
FAILED TO PROVE FAILED TO AGREE
NOT PROVEN NOT AGREED
HIDDEN DISAGREED
FAILED TO HIDE FAILED TO DISAGREE
NOT HIDDEN NOT DISAGREED
REVEALED IGNORED
FAILED TO REVEAL FAILED TO IGNORE
NOT REVEALED NOT IGNORED
MADE MISTAKES DECIDED
FAILED TO MISTAKE FAILED TO DECIDE
NOT MADE MISTAKES NOT DECIDED
ASSERTED PROPITIATED
FAILED TO ASSERT FAILED TO PROPITIATE
NOT ASSERTED NOT PROPITIATED
CHANGED HELD OFF
FAILED TO CHANGE FAILED TO HOLD OFF
NOT CHANGED NOT HELD OFF
DAMAGED PULLED IN
FAILED TO DAMAGE FAILED TO PULL IN
NOT DAMAGED NOT PULLED IN
REMAINED HELPED
FAILED TO REMAIN FAILED TO HELP
NOT REMAINED NOT HELPED
PREVENTED KNOWN
FAILED TO PREVENT FAILED TO KNOW
NOT PREVENTED NOT KNOWN
PRESSED ON CAUSED
FAILED TO PRESS ON FAILED TO CAUSE
NOT PRESSED ON NOT CAUSED
BEEN RIGHT BELIEVED
FAILED TO BE RIGHT FAILED TO BELIEVE
NOT BEEN RIGHT NOT BELIEVED
BEEN WRONG CURED
FAILED TO BE WRONG FAILED TO CURE
NOT BEEN WRONG NOT CURED
WON LIKED
FAILED TO WIN FAILED TO LIKE
NOT WON NOT LIKED
LOST AVOIDED
FAILED TO LOSE FAILED TO AVOID
NOT LOST NOT AVOIDED
BLOCKED BEEN BORED
FAILED TO BLOCK NOT BEEN BORED
NOT BLOCKED
BEEN ANTAGONISTIC
RETREATED NOT BEEN ANTAGONISTIC
FAILED TO RETREAT
NOT RETREATED ENDURED
FAILED TO ENDURE
REACHED NOT ENDURED
FAILED TO REACH
NOT REACHED ABANDONED
ATTACKED FAILED TO ABANDON
FAILED TO ATTACK NOT ABANDONED
NOT ATTACKED
GIVEN UP
STOPPED FAILED TO GIVE UP
FAILED TO STOP NOT GIVEN UP
NOT STOPPED
BEEN SANE
CONFRONTED FAILED TO BE SANE
FAILED TO CONFRONT NOT BEEN SANE
NOT CONFRONTED
BEEN CURIOUS
COMMUNICATED FAILED TO BE CURIOUS
FAILED TO COMMUNICATE NOT BEEN CURIOUS
NOT COMMUNICATED
DESIRED
BEEN PRIDEFUL FAILED TO DESIRE
FAILED TO BE PROUD NOT DESIRED
NOT BEEN PRIDEFUL
ENFORCED
SYMPATHIZED FAILED TO ENFORCE
FAILED TO SYMPATHIZE NOT ENFORCED
NOT SYMPATHIZED
INHIBITED
RECOVERED FAILED TO INHIBIT
FAILED TO RECOVER NOT INHIBITED
NOT RECOVERED
HAD BEEN ANGRY
FAILED TO HAVE FAILED TO BE ANGRY
NOT HAD RESENTED
LOOKED FAILED TO RESENT
FAILED TO LOOK NOT RESENTED
NOT LOOKED FEARED
BEEN SERENE FAILED TO FEAR
FAILED TO BE SERENE NOT FEARED
BEEN ENTHUSIASTIC BEEN IN GRIEF
FAILED TO BE ENTHUSIASTIC FAILED TO CRY
BEEN CONSERVATIVE BEEN APATHETIC
FAILED TO BE CONSERVATIVE FAILED TO BE APATHETIC
INFLOWED THOUGHT
FAILED TO INFLOW FAILED TO THINK
STOPPED INFLOW NOT THOUGHT
OUTFLOWED EVALUATED
FAILED TO OUTFLOW FAILED TO EVALUATE
STOPPED OUTFLOW NOT EVALUATED
HAD OPINIONS ABOUT
FAILED TO HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT
NOT HAD OPINIONS ABOUT
In nulling this scale the pc may suddenly break down emotionally or get
an overpowering reaction. (Not just a twinge or an interest in a level,
since the pc will not know the real level until it is found.) If so, STOP,
don't go on. Go back to above the point where pc was all right and then
carefully null back down to where you stopped. Go over this area getting in
suppress and invalidate if needful and you'll have the pc's level found.
You may lead into ARC Breaks if you persist in going on as you have by-
passed charge. But the pc's reaction must be large for you to use this
mechanism. Beware of a "sell" by the pc. A pc doesn't know the level until
it is actually found. Some pcs will decide on a level and it will then
read. In such a case get in Protested and Decided with "On this scale have
you ......" by fast check. Don't let your pc mess up an assessment by a
"sell" or decision. But don't keep on down a long assessment of this scale
with the pc shattered by pain or emotion as the pc will suppress the right
level.
When you have found the pc's level on the above scale by elimination,
then list the following question, using that level found: "In this lifetime
what have you ...... (level found)?"
List the list to a clean needle so that it nuls very easily, leaving a
very few in on the first nulling, only two or three in on the second
nulling of what has been left in. Put mid ruds in on these if necessary.
Nul out to the final Item.
Combine the Level found and the Item found. This is a very simple step.
The wording may have to be altered in tense but not in sense. "Decided" may
become "Decision". "Failed to think" may become "Failure to think". In the
Item found some shift of the pc's wording may be needful. But be very
careful that you get a combination of Level and Item that makes sense to
the pc and reads on the meter without protest reading too. These reads are
often not very large and at best assume steep falls with TA action. So be
careful to add up the Level and the Item found to a sensible statement that
does not alter the sense. For instance you can err greatly if the Level was
"Fear" and the Item was "Entrapment" if you vary it to "Fear of Traps".
That won't give you the same chain at all. The correct one is "Fear of
Entrapment" of course.
You can have a correct Level, a correct Item and then fail to combine
the two sensibly. If so you will get (a) A confused pc and (b) A wrong
chain. Either way you'll get little TA action and no R3R done.
The Level "Failed to Convince" and the Item "Father" had better be left
just that way. It gives a short chain, this lifetime, soon done. By
changing the Item "Father" to "Fathers" you would go whole track but the
significance is wildly altered and might not run at all. The less
alteration the better. And never alter the sense of it.
Use the question: "Is the first available (Level) (Item) incident
earlier than five years ago? Later than five years ago?" And using times to
suit, go on with Step One of R3R.
(Note: The above scale is in random order of arrangement at this time
and positions of levels on the scale have no significance.)
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :dr.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY AD13
Franchise
Academies ALL ROUTINES
CenOCon
BPI (HCO Secs: Check out all ARC Break
Assessment HCO Bulletins on all
executives including registrars and on
all staff auditors and Instructors)
ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS
These lists are valuable. Intelligently used they put an auditor or
Scientology staff or executive at cause over all session ARC Breaks and
Scientology upsets.
The following Assessments are for use in finding by-passed charge in
various auditing activities.
The source of all ARC Breaks is by-passed charge. There is no other
source of ARC Breaks. The type of charge that can be by-passed varies from
one auditing activity to another (R3R, 3N, etc). Therefore different lists
for assessment are necessary for different Routines in auditing. Another
list for general auditing is also necessary.
Everything that has been written about by-passed charge is valid. All
by-passed charge is in some degree a missed withhold, missed by both
auditor and pc.
Having these lists for assessment, there is no excuse for an ARC Break
to long continue in a session or for anyone to remain ARC Broken with
Scientology.
The following assessments find what kind of charge has been missed. It
is then up to the auditor to locate it more precisely as to character and
time and indicate it to the pc. The pc will feel better the moment the
right type of by-passed charge is identified by assessment and indicated by
the auditor. If the pc does not feel better but further ARC Breaks then the
assessment is either incomplete or incorrect.
Many complicated ways exist for a charge to be by-passed. There is no
reason to go into these. You will find it is always by-passed charge and
that it could have been located and indicated in any ARC Break.
R2H is the training process for use of these lists. In R2H devoted to
"In auditing" or when an ARC Break is found in a past auditing session
during an R2H session the type of list that applied to that session is
used.
There are four ways of using these lists. The first is to assess by
elimination and come up with one list line still reading on the meter and
indicate it as the charge to the pc. The second is to go down a list taking
each one that reads and clearing it up with the pc, finishing the whole
list and then finally indicate what read the most. The third way is like
the second except that the pc is required to help find what made the type
of charge read and actually identify it as a particular thing. The fourth
way is to assess only for biggest read or one line and have the pc help
spot it.
The third way is the one most commonly used at the end of a session
where it is just cleaning up the session, and each question is completely
cleaned on the needle in turn. The first way is most used on violent ARC
Breaks. The second or the fourth ways are used in R2H.
Assessment often has to be done through a dirty needle. No effort is
made to clean it up before assessment. And just because the needle is dirty
is no reason to call them all "in". Learn to read through a DN for both ARC
Break Assessments and dating. It is rather easy to do with a Mark V meter
as the characteristic of the DN shifts when one is "in".
No effort has been made here to convert the words to non-Scientology
language, as the sense would be lost to a Scientologist.
These lists are all bare-bone and contain only the usual types of by-
passed charge. They may be added to as experience with them increases. They
become too unwieldy when they are too long. The only way you can get
confused as to how to locate and indicate charge is by finding the wrong
charge.
GENERAL ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT
Used in general sessions of all kinds where an ARC Break has occurred,
or at session end in all routines and for R2H.
The prefix sentence "In this session has???" is used when cleaning up a
session at its end or during the session. "At that time had???" is used for
R2H. The actual date may be occasionally substituted for "time" to keep the
pc oriented but only if necessary.
LIST L-1
a withhold been missed?
some emotion been rejected?
some affinity been rejected?
a reality been refused?
a communication been cut short?
a communication been ignored?
an earlier rejection of emotion been restimulated?
an earlier rejection of affinity been restimulated?
an earlier refusal of reality been restimulated?
an earlier ignored communication been restimulated'?
a wrong reason for an upset been given?
a similar incident occurred before'?
something been done other than what was said?
a goal been disappointed?
some help been rejected?
a decision been made?
an engram been restimulated?
an earlier incident been restimulated?
there been a sudden shift of attention?
something startled you? a perception been prevented?
a willingness not been acknowledged?
there been no auditing?
(Note: If "overt" is added to this list or any BMR buttons, the scale
cannot be used in an R3R or 3N session as these "mush" up engrams.)
(Note: If this list is used do not also use any other end rudiments
except goals, gains and pc's havingness.)
ASSESSMENT SESSIONS
LISTING SESSIONS
PRELIMINARY STEP R3R
THE ARC BREAK FOR ASSESSMENTS LIST
When doing any listing step or type of auditing use the following list
for ARC Break Assessment in event of an ARC Break in the session or at
session end.
The prefix "In this session has ..." is used for a listing session, and
"In that session had . . ." if a listing session ARC Break is recalled by
the pc doing R2H.
LIST L-2
an incorrect level been found?
an incorrect item been found?
a list not been completed?
a level abandoned? an item abandoned?
you not given items you thought of?
a goal been restimulated?
an implant been restimulated?
an engram been restimulated?
a withhold been missed?
earlier listing been restimulated?
earlier wrong levels been restimulated?
earlier wrong items been restimulated?
earlier listing ARC Breaks been restimulated?
ROUTINE R3R
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
In all engram running sessions, and those combined with 3N in that
session, use the following list.
Prefix each question with "In this session have . . ." in event of an
ARC Break or at session end. For R2H where an ARC Break is discovered in an
earlier engram running session (clear back to 1950), prefix with "In that
session had the auditor . . ." and omit "I" and "we".
LIST L-3
I found an incorrect date?
I found an incorrect duration?
I demanded more than you could see?
two or more engrams been found on the same date?
you skidded to another incident?
we moved to another chain?
we gotten to a goals implant?
we scanned through a GPM?
we restimulated an earlier incident?
we restimulated an earlier implant?
we restimulated an earlier ARC Break on engrams?
we failed to find the real beginning of the incident?
we by-passed important data?
we skipped an incident?
two or more incidents been confused?
I missed a withhold on you?
we left an incident too heavily charged?
we scanned through one or more series of goal implants?
we abandoned a chain? we abandoned an incident?
I prevented you from running an incident?
I changed processes on you?
(Note: Do NOT use any BMR buttons during engram running or add overts
to this list as they will "mush" engrams.)
ROUTINE 3N
GPMs, ALL GOALS SESSIONS
When a session is being run on GPMs or goals no matter with what
routine, use the following ARC Break assessment when any ARC Break, great
or small, occurs (or when pc becomes critical of the auditor even
"playfully"). If R3R and R3N are both run in the same session, do both L-3
and L-4.
Prefix the lines with "In this session have . . .", or for R2H ARC
Breaks found in goals sessions "In that session had the auditor . . ." and
omit "I" or "we". In event that the current pc was the auditor in that
session and ARC Broke (applies also to List L-3 above) use List L-1.
LIST L-4
I given you an incorrect item?
I given you a wrongly worded goal?
I given you a wrong goal?
I left an Item charged?
I skipped an Item?
I skipped more than one Item?
I skipped a goal?
I skipped more than one goal?
we restimulated an earlier wrong goal?
we restimulated an earlier wrong item?
we restimulated an earlier implant?
I failed to give you a goal?
I failed to give you an item?
I misdated a goal?
you run items out of different GPMs (or goals)?
we run more than one series of goals?
we restimulated an earlier goals series?
we restimulated an earlier engram?
you skidded on the time track?
we gone over an engram inside this GPM?
we restimulated another GPM?
we missed part of the incident?
I given you no auditing?
I missed a withhold on you?
we missed some other kind of charge?
we abandoned a goal?
we abandoned an item?
I given you more Items than are here?
I given you more goals than are here?
we listed an item wrong way to?
I restimulated earlier errors in running GPMs?
we slipped into a later goals series?
I changed processes on you?
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:jw.cden
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[The above lists have been later revised by HCO Bs 19 March 1971, List-l-C,
Volume VII, page 203; 11 April 1971RA, Revised 8 March 1974, L3RD Dianetics
and Int RD Repair List, Volume VIII, page 265; and 15 December 1968R,
Revised 2 June 1972, L4BR-For Assessment of All Listing Errors, Volume
Vlll, page 138.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY 1963
CenOCon
Franchise
CCHs REWRITTEN
(Replaces HCO Bulletin of 2 November 1961, "Training CCHs"
and HCO Policy Letter of 15 May 1962, "CCHs Rewritten")
The following revised rundown on the CCHs is to be used by all Students
in Scientology Orgs.
CONTROL-COMMUNICATION-HAVINGNESS PROCESSES
The following rundown of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been slightly amended.
They are for use in training. CCHs are run as follows:
CCH I to a flat point then CCH 2 to a flat point then CCH 3 to a flat
point then CCH 4 to a flat point then CCH 1 to a flat point, etc.
To bring the CCH training into line with current methods of teaching
TRs, etc, at the end of each drill a list of Coach's questions is given. In
addition Coach should take instructions from the "Commands" and "Training
Stress" and frame them in the form of questions. For example, in CCH I
Coach could ask, "Did you make every command and cycle separate?"
Coach must avoid invalidating Student and not ask questions on what
Coach thinks the Student has done wrong. The correct method is to ask a few
questions at a time choosing and forming questions at random. On the other
hand Coach should not ask a question about something that has not happened
in the drill. For example, in CCH 3, if Coach has not manifested a "dope-
off", Coach would not ask, "When I doped off did you take my hand and
execute the command one hand at a time?"
No. CCH 1.
NAME. GIVE ME THAT HAND. Tone 40.
COMMANDS. GIVE ME THAT HAND.
Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the
Coach's lap. Making physical contact with the Coach's hand if Coach
resists. THANK YOU ending each cycle.
All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time. Take up
each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the
Coach, when it happens, and querying it by asking "What's happening?" This
two-way comm is not Tone 40. Run only on the right hand.
POSITION: Student and Coach seated in chairs without arms. Student's knees
on outside of both Coach's knees.
PURPOSE. To demonstrate to pc that control of pc's body is possible,
despite revolt of circuits, and inviting pc to directly control it.
Absolute control by auditor then passes over towards absolute control of
his own body by pc.
TRAINING STRESS. Never stop process until a flat place is reached. Freezes
may be introduced at end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and
before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain
information from the Coach or to bridge from the process. This is done
between two commands, holding the Coach's hand after acknowledgement.
Coach's hand should be clasped with exactly correct pressure. Make every
command and cycle separate. Maintain Tone 40, stress on intention from
Student to Coach with each command. To leave an instant for Coach to do it
by own will before Student decides to take hand or make contact with it.
Stress
Tone 40 precision; can be coached for some time silently with Coach looking
for silent Student intention. Student indicates hand by nod of head.
COACH'S QUESTIONS.
CCH 1. 1. What is a Tone 40 Command?
(Intention without reservation)
2. Did you give me a Tone 40 Command?
3. Was the command executed?
4. What is a change?
(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. Did you notice any change?
6. What was it?
7. Did you take it up with me?
8. Did you introduce a freeze at end of cycle to ascertain
information
from me or to bridge from the process?
HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC Washington DC, 1957.
No. CCH 2.
NAME. TONE 40 8C.
COMMANDS. YOU LOOK AT THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
YOU WALK OVER TO THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
YOU TOUCH THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
TURN AROUND. THANK YOU.
Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by
the Coach, when it happens, and querying it by asking "What's happening?"
This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Commands smoothly enforced physically
when necessary. Tone 40, full intention.
POSITION: Student and Coach ambulant, Student in physical contact with
Coach as needed.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate to pc that his body can be controlled and thus
inviting him to control it. To orient him in his present time Environment.
To increase his ability to duplicate and thusly increase his Havingness.
TRAINING STRESS: Absolute Student precision. No drops from Tone 40. No
flubs. Total present time. Student on Coach's right side. Student's body
acts as block to forward motion when Coach turns. Student gives command,
gives Coach a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact
of exactly correct force to get command executed. Student does not block
Coach from executing commands. Method of introduction as in CCH 1. Freezes
may be introduced at the end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and
before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain
information from the Coach or to bridge from the process, this being the
acknowledgement "THANK YOU" after the command "TURN AROUND".
COACH'S QUESTIONS.
CCH 2: 1. What is a Tone 40 Command?
(Intention without reservation)
2. Did you give me a Tone 40 Command?
3. Was the command executed?
4. What is a change?
(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. Did you notice any change?
6. What was it?
7. Did you take it up with me?
8. Did you introduce a freeze at end of cycle to ascertain
information
from me or to bridge from the process?
HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington DC, in 1957 for the 17th
ACC.
No. CCH 3.
NAME. HAND SPACE MIMICRY.
COMMANDS: Student raises 2 hands palms facing Coach's about an equal
distance between the Student and Coach and says "PUT YOUR HANDS AGAINST
MINE, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION." He then makes a simple
motion with right hand then left. "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?"
Acknowledge answer. Student allows Coach to break solid comm line. When
this is flat, the Student does this same with a half inch of space between
his and the Coach's palms. The command being "PUT YOUR HANDS FACING MINE
ABOUT l/2 INCH AWAY, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION." "DID YOU
CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?" Acknowledge. When this is flat, Student does
it with a wider space and so on until Coach is able to follow motions a
yard away.
POSITION. Student and Coach seated, close together facing each other,
Coach's knees between Student's knees.
PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid
communication line). To get pc into communication by control and
duplication. To find auditor.
TRAINING STRESS: That Student be gentle and accurate in his motions, all
motions being Tone 40, giving pc wins. To be free in 2-way communication.
That process be introduced and run as a formal process. To teach student
that if coach dopes off in this process Student may take Coach's wrist and
help him execute the command one hand at a time. That if Coach does not
answer during anaten to question "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?",
Student may wait for normal comm lag of that Coach, acknowledge and
continue process.
COACH'S QUESTIONS.
CCH 3: 1. What is a Tone 40 motion?
(Intention without reservation)
2. Did you give me a Tone 40 motion?
3. Was the motion executed?
4. What is a change?
(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. Did you notice any change'?
6. What was it?
7. Did you take it up with me?
8. Did you do a simple movement?
9. Define two-way communication.
(One question-the right one.)
10. Did you receive a verbal origination?
11. Did you understand it?
12. Did you acknowledge it?
13. Did you return me to session?
14. Did you double question me?
15. Did you change because I had changed?
16. Did you follow my instruction?
17. What did you do?
18. What happened?
HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington DC, 1956, as a
therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant
'Look at me' 'Who am I?' and 'Find the auditor' part of rudiments.
No. CCH 4.
NAME. BOOK MIMICRY.
COMMANDS: THERE ARE NO SET VERBAL COMMANDS.
Student makes simple motions with a book. Hands book to the Coach. Coach
makes motion, duplicating Student's mirror-image-wise. Student asks pc if
he is satisfied that the Coach duplicated the motion. If Coach is and
Student is also fairly satisfied,
Student takes back the book and goes to next command. If Coach is not sure
that he duplicated any command, Student repeats it for him and gives him
back the book. If Coach is sure he did and Student can see duplication is
pretty wrong, Student accepts Coach's answer and continues on a gradient
scale of motions either with the left or right hand till Coach can do
original command correctly. This ensures no invalidation of the Coach. Tone
40, only in motions, verbal 2-way quite free.
POSITION: Student and Coach seated facing each other, a comfortable
distance apart.
PURPOSE: To bring up pc's communication with control and duplication
(control and duplication = communication).
TRAINING STRESS: Stress giving Coach wins. Stress Student's necessity to
duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight
lines. Tolerance. of plus or minus randomity are apparent here and the
Student should probably begin on the Coach with motions that begin in the
same place each time and are neither very fast nor very slow, nor very
complex. Introduced by the Student seeing that Coach understands what is to
be done, as here is no verbal command, formal process.
COACH'S QUESTIONS:
CCH 4: 1. What is a Tone 40 motion?
(Intention without reservation)
2. Did you give me a Tone 40 motion?
3. Was the motion executed?
4. What is a change?
(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. Did you notice any change?
6. What was it?
7. Did you take it up with me?
8. Did you do a simple movement?
9. Define two-way communication.
(One question-the right one.)
10. Did you receive a verbal origination?
11. Did you understand it?
12. Did you acknowledge it?
13. Did you return me to session?
14. Did you double question me?
15. Did you change because I had changed?
16. Did you follow my instruction?
17. What did you do?
18. What happened?
HISTORY: Developed by L.R.H. for the 16th ACC in Washington DC, 1957. Based
on duplication. Developed by L.R.H. in London, 1952.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dr. rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B is replaced by HCO B I December 1965, CCHs, Volume VI, page
118. See also HCO PL 17 May 1965, CCHs, Volume VI, page 40, which says that
processes may not be used as drills.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JULY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
A TECHNICAL SUMMARY
THE REQUIRED SKILLS OF PROCESSING
AND WHY
Here is where we stand and where we're going.
An auditor, to make a Clear or OT, has to be able to handle confidently
certain skills.
Today we assume that every successful process we ever had is and was a
valid process. We are at a point of summation and valuation as we are
achieving excellent and steady progress even on the most unlikely cases. I
consider that the period of basic mental research has ended and the period
of adjustment of skills, on which I will for some time be engaged, has been
entered upon.
I list here the auditor skills which are requisite to handle any case.
SKILLS BY CASE LEVEL
Case Levels 8, 7 and 6
Objective Processes
Reach and Withdraw Commands
CCHs
Havingness Processes
Case Levels 7, 6 and 5
Model Session
Repetitive Command Processes
R2H
Meter Reading
Simple Assessment of a form
Case Levels 6, 5, 4 and 3
Assessment of Levels
Listing and Nulling Lists
R3R
3N
These constitute, to use another table, the following exact skills:
Handling the pc's body (as in Reach and Withdraw or 8c).
Ability to execute the auditing cycle.
Ability to give repetitive commands.
Ability to handle a meter.
Ability to run a Model Session and keep the pc in session.
Ability to read a Tone Arm.
Ability to accurately meter date.
Ability to run R2H.
Ability to locate and handle ARC Breaks.
Ability to assess a simple form.
Ability to find a level.
Ability to list, complete and nul a list.
Ability to run R3R.
Ability to do 3N.
Ability to do a form Line Plot for a GPM.
Ability to do a Line Plot for an off-beat GPM.
Ability to list for and find a goal.
Ability to list for and find a top oppterm.
Knowledge of the Time Track.
Knowledge of the Thetan.
Knowledge of the basics of Life.
A General Knowledge of Scientology.
(Note: The abilities of R3R, R3N and R2H are also listed separately in
the above.)
These, briefly, are the skills required to make an OT. They are well
taught at Saint Hill. They are practised in Central Orgs as fast as
released. HCO Bulletins exist on nearly all this material, except some fine
points of R3R which are known but not yet written up, and some of the R3N
Line Plots not yet issued.
BASIC SKILLS
If you examine the above you will find that where the auditor cannot do
the required skill the faults are only one or more of the following:
Cannot execute the auditing cycle.
Cannot execute an auditing cycle repetitively.
Cannot handle a session.
Cannot read a meter.
Cannot study and apply Scientology data.
Given the ability to execute the auditing cycle once or repetitively,
handle a session, read a meter and study and apply procedures, all the
above listed auditing skills are easily acquired and successfully done.
Therefore in looking for the reasons for no results, one finds the
failure to apply the required procedure and in tracing that, one inevitably
finds one or more of these five basics amiss in the auditor.
It is no longer a question of whether Scientology works, it is only a
question of whether the auditor can work Scientology. If he or she can't,
then the trouble lies in one or more of these basics.
The trouble does not lie with the procedure or with the pc. Of course
some procedures above are harder to do than others and some pcs can worry
an auditor far more than others, but these are incidental and are very
junior to the five basics above.
The lower the case level of the auditor, the harder time he or she will
have grasping the know-how and using it. For instance a squirrel is only a
dramatizing Case Level 6 or 7. A student having a rough time is a Case
Level 6 or 5. Somebody almost heartbreaking to teach is a Case Level 7 or
8. BUT, with alert guidance and even making mistakes, I have seen Case
Levels from 3 to 8 alike getting wins and finally smoothing out on the five
basics above. I've seen it myself in the past two years of training at
Saint Hill. So I've discarded Case Level as an index of auditing ability,
it is only an index of how-hard-to-train.
The question of psychotic or neurotic does not enter. These are
artificial states and have no real bearing, surprisingly enough, on Case
Level. My belief in an auditor's ability to audit has far more bearing on
his auditing than his or her aberrations.
The only factor left is auditor judgment. This varies about and
improves with wins. But processes are so arranged that it is a question
only of what is the highest process that gives TA action, rather than pre-
session case estimation. Trial and error is the best test. I would use it
myself, for I have often found the most unlikely preclear (at first glance)
capable of running high level processes and some very "capable" people (at
casual inspection) unable to see a wall. So I always run the highest level
that I hope pc can run, and revise on experience with the pc if necessary.
FORMER TRAINING
As all modern courses and Academies have stressed basic skills as above
for some time, no past training has been lost.
Those who learned R2-12 are much better fitted to do R3R and 3N than
those who did not.
We look on any auditor today to be able to do repetitive processes but
remember, that was sometimes a hard-won ability and old Book and Bottle was
developed to assist it.
People who learned Pre-hav assessing or goals finding are definitely
well progressed.
Anyone who can do the CCHs successfully will always find them handy.
So I count no training lost. And I am about to collect all earlier
processes that worked on psychosomatic ills and publish them, since being
careful not to do healing has not protected us at all and we might as well
take over the medical profession for I now find that only their trade
association has been firing at us in the press. So that opens up a use for
almost all training on processes ever given.
If an auditor has learned the above basics he or she can easily do the
long list of skills required for Clearing or OT.
CLEARING
We can clear to keyed-out clear or clear stably. I have considered it
necessary to stress thorough clearing. We are on a longer road but a more
certain and stable road when we erase the Time Track or sections of it.
Clear is now Case Level 2.
The main goal, however, is OT, due to the general situation. When we
were attacked I decided on a policy of:
1. Hold the line on the Legal Front and
2. Accelerate research to OT as our best means of handling the
situation.
Both these policies are being successful in the extreme and I hope you
agree with them.
By courtesy, one GPM run gives a first goal clear. No further test is done.
One chain of engrams completed is an R3R one-chain clear. This is
easier than you might think.
Theta clear at this time is a Case Level 2 that is exterior.
OT is a Case Level 1 complete with skills rehabilitated.
The route to these states is very well established and is contained in
the first list above.
HOURS OF PROCESSING
Cases require as many hours as they are located on the Case Level
Scale. The lower they are the more hours they require. The higher they are
the less they require.
As some index, I have had about 800 hours lately including all
techniques from R2-12 forward, much of it purely research auditing on
myself as a pc, developing procedures and getting line plots. Barely 250
hours of this was effective auditing. And I am definitely on the easy last
half to OT.
In a period of about half that, Mary Sue achieved 10 goal clear and has
just completed her first assessed R3R chain. This included all the R3 goals
work, the research of R2-12 on her as a pc, as well as R3N and R3R.
Effective Auditing, given the data now known, amounted to about 150 hours
or less.
A guess to OT, given a skilled auditor and training on all modern data
as above, and an able pc, would be less than 500 hours to a one chain R3R
clear. This expectancy is being fulfilled on the Saint Hill Course for
those now in Z Unit. To this would have to be added any processing time
necessary to get the pc up to R3R. I consider that OT lies on the sunny
side of 1,000 hours of processing now for cases that can be audited.
DIFFICULTY OF CLEARING
No case is really easy. A higher state attained is an uphill fight. So
don't underestimate the difficulty of clearing.
We went too long on the Time Track before developing and working at
Scientology .
BUT we can do it. And it is a lot more than worthwhile-it is vital that
we do do it. If we miss now, we may be finished. For there is no help
elsewhere and there never has been this technology or any successful mental
technology. And just now nobody cares but us. When we've succeeded all the
way everybody will want on. But not yet.
My own job is very far from an end. The job of getting the purely
technology developed and organized is practically over, unless you consider
a recording of the full technology as part of the job. I've only recorded
essentials and am just writing the last bulletins on those. But ahead is a
vast panorama of research on other dynamics and enormous amounts of other
technology.
LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6307C09 SHSBC-281 The Free Being
** 6307C10 SHSBC-282 Auditing Skills for R-3R
** 6307C10 SHSBC-284A Preliminary Steps of R-3R, Part 1
** 6307C10 SHSBC-284B Preliminary Steps of R-3R, Part 2
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JULY 1963
Sthil
SHSBC
AUDITING RUNDOWN
MISSED WITHHOLDS
TO BE RUN IN X 1 UNIT
1. Complete a list on the following question:
"In this lifetime what have you done that you have withheld from
someone?"
2. On each withhold listed ask:
(a) "When was it?"
(b) "Where was it?"
(c) "Who failed to find out about it?"
(d) "Who nearly found out about it?"
(e) "Who still doesn't know about it?"
Each answer must be written down and the sheet of answers showing to
which withhold they relate must be turned in with the auditing report.
The answer sheet will be made available to all instructors on the
Course.
The above suggestion was made by Bernie Pesco, Saint Hill Special
Briefing Course student, and accepted for use.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: gl.bh
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This HCO B is superseded by HCO B 23 July 1963, Auditing Rundown-Missed
Withholds-To be Run in XI Unit.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
11-18 July 1963
** 6307C11 SHSBC-283 ARC Breaks
** 6307C16 SHSBC-285 Tips on Running R-3R
** 6307C17 SHSBC-286 Dating
** 6307C18 SHSBC-287 Errors in Time
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise for info
CO-AUDIT
ARC BREAK PROCESS
A despatch from Dennis Stephens, DScn, Acting Assoc Sec Sydney, is
informative in handling a co-audit on the ARC Break Process.
The Commands of the ARC Break Process are not entirely fixed at this
time but are more or less as follows, each command being called a "leg".
What Attitude has been rejected?
What Reality has been refused?
What Communication has been ignored?
In private sessions each leg of this process is run flat (more or less)
before the next is run and so on and on, around and around, some effort
being made to give each leg an equal time. The rules of ARC (to raise one
that is low, raise the other two) apply so that no great stress is given an
inability on one leg, but all are treated equally.
The process fits in at Case Level 5, is a bit higher than R2H.
L. RON
HUBBARD
The despatch follows:
Dear Ron,
The new ARC 1963 Process is producing good results here in Sydney.
We have recently introduced it onto our public co-audit. Certain
problems introduced themselves in the application of this process to a .
group of unskilled auditors who were not trained in the use of E-Meters,
etc. The process as given was to be run a leg at a time, each leg to quiet
TA or 3 equal comm lags, or a cognition.
Now to run it against the TA on public co-audit meant each student had
a meter (which they haven't) and the idea was rejected as impractical.
Similarly training them in spotting cognitions and comm lags was also
rejected as being time consuming. The other possibility was the supervisors
go around continuously and take TA reads. Now this system is not good
because the supervisor coming up and taking reads disturbs the pc and so
disturbs the TA and so defeats its own purpose. The other possibility was
an elaborate series of wiring where each pc is switched in to a Master
Board and the supervisor, by switches, plugs each pc onto the meter at his
desk. We haven't got such equipment and can barely afford its installation.
Anyway that was discarded too.
How to run it? Well, I tried the following system out and it works like
a dream. Other orgs might find it useful too.
The pc runs the first leg until he has no more answers, he then goes to
second leg until he has no more answers, and similarly with the 3rd leg. He
then returns to the first leg, etc, etc. If the pc should ever (heaven
forbid! and it's never happened yet) have "no more answers" for each and
every leg he either has a thumping ARC Break or needs a "prod" from the
meter. So the supervisor would just meter check one of the legs and steer
the pc's attention to the answer and he's off on another chain!
The system works OK because the pc is going round and round the same series
of commands and always gets another chance to look at each question. Run in
this manner the process becomes virtually unlimited.
This system of running the process is particularly applicable where raw
people are concerned, with not even a comm course under their belt and
fresh from PE course.
Anyway it works very well.
Very best,
DENNIS
LRH: dr jh
Copyright �1963 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963
MA
Franchise
BPI
YOU CAN BE RIGHT
Rightness and wrongness form a common source of argument and struggle.
The concept of rightness reaches very high and very low on the Tone
Scale.
And the effort to be right is the last conscious striving of an
individual on the way out. I-am-right-and-they-are-wrong is the lowest
concept that can be formulated by an unaware case.
What is right and what is wrong are not necessarily definable for
everyone. These vary according to existing moral codes and disciplines and,
before Scientology, despite their use in law as a test of "sanity", had no
basis in fact but only in opinion.
In Dianetics and Scientology a more precise definition arose. And the
definition became as well the true definition of an overt act. An overt act
is not just injuring someone or something: an overt act is an act of
omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of
dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (See the
Eight Dynamics.)
Thus a wrong action is wrong to the degree that it harms the greatest
number of dynamics. And a right action is right to the degree that it
benefits the greatest number of dynamics.
Many people think that an action is an overt simply because it is
destructive. To them all destructive actions or omissions are overt acts.
This is not true. For an act of commission or omission to be an overt act
it must harm the greater number of dynamics. A failure to destroy can be,
therefore, an overt act. Assistance to something that would harm a greater
number of dynamics can also be an overt act.
An overt act is something that harms broadly. A beneficial act is
something that helps broadly. It can be a beneficial act to harm something
that would be harmful to the greater number of dynamics.
Harming everything and helping everything alike can be overt acts.
Helping certain things and harming certain things alike can be beneficial
acts.
The idea of not harming anything and helping everything are alike
rather mad. It is doubtful if you would think helping enslaves was a
beneficial action and equally doubtful if you would consider the
destruction of a disease an overt act.
In the matter of being right or being wrong, a lot of muddy thinking
can develop. There are no absolute rights or absolute wrongs. And being
right does not consist of being unwilling to harm and being wrong does not
consist only of not harming.
There is an irrationality about "being right" which not only throws out
the validity of the legal test of sanity but also explains why some people
do very wrong things and insist they are doing right.
The answer lies in an impulse, inborn in everyone, to try to be right.
This is an insistence which rapidly becomes divorced from right action. And
it is accompanied by an effort to make others wrong, as we see in
hypercritical cases. A being who is apparently unconscious is still being
right and making others wrong. It is the last criticism.
We have seen a "defensive person" explaining away the most flagrant
wrongnesses. This is "justification" as well. Most explanations of conduct,
no matter how far-fetched, seem perfectly right to the person making them
since he or she is only asserting self-rightness and other-wrongness.
We have long said that that which is not admired tends to persist. If
no one admires a person for being right, then that person's "brand of being
right" will persist, no matter how mad it sounds. Scientists who are
aberrated cannot seem to get many theories. They do not because they are
more interested in insisting on their own odd rightnesses than they are in
finding truth. Thus we get strange "scientific truths" from
men who should know better, including the late Einstein. Truth is built by
those who have the breadth and balance to see also where they're wrong.
You have heard some very absurd arguments out among the crowd. Realize
that the speaker was more interested in asserting his or her own rightness
than in being right.
A thetan tries to be right and fights being wrong. This is without
regard to being right about something or to do actual right. It is an
insistence which has no concern with a rightness of conduct.
One tries to be right always, right down to the last spark.
How then, is one ever wrong?
It is this way:
One does a wrong action, accidentally or through oversight. The
wrongness of the action or inaction is then in conflict with one's
necessity to be right. So one then may continue and repeat the wrong action
to prove it is right.
This is a fundamental of aberration. All wrong actions are the result
of an error followed by an insistence on having been right. Instead of
righting the error (which would involve being wrong) one insists the error
was a right action and so repeats it.
As a being goes down scale it is harder and harder to admit having been
wrong. Nay, such an admission could well be disastrous to any remaining
ability or sanity.
For rightness is the stuff of which survival is made. And as one
approaches the last ebb of survival one can only insist on having been
right, for to believe for a moment one has been wrong is to court oblivion.
The last defense of any being is "I was right". That applies to anyone.
When that defense crumbles, the lights go out.
So we are faced with the unlovely picture of asserted rightness in the
face of flagrant wrongness. And any success in making the being realize
their wrongness results in an immediate degradation, unconsciousness, or at
best a loss of personality. Pavlov, Freud, psychiatry alike never grasped
the delicacy of these facts and so evaluated and punished the criminal and
insane into further criminality and insanity.
All justice today contains in it this hidden error-that the last
defense is a belief in personal rightness regardless of charges and
evidence alike, and that the effort to make another wrong results only in
degradation.
But all this would be a hopeless impasse leading to highly chaotic
social conditions were it not for one saving fact:
All repeated and "incurable" wrongnesses stem from the exercise of a
last defence: "trying to be right". Therefore the compulsive wrongness can
be cured no matter how mad it may seem or how thoroughly its rightness is
insisted upon.
Getting the offender to admit his or her wrongness is to court further
degradation and even unconsciousness or the destruction of a being.
Therefore the purpose of punishment is defeated and punishment has minimal
workability.
But by getting the offender off the compulsive repetition of the
wrongness, one then cures it.
But how?
By rehabilitating the ability to be right!
This has limitless application-in training, in social skills, in
marriage, in law, in life.
Example: A wife is always burning dinner. Despite scolding, threats of
divorce, anything, the compulsion continues. One can wipe this wrongness
out by getting her to explain what is right about her cooking. This may
well evoke a raging tirade in some extreme cases, but if one flattens the
question, that all dies away and she happily ceases to burn dinners.
Carried to classic proportions but not entirely necessary to end the
compulsion, a moment in the past will be recovered when she
accidentally burned a dinner and could not face up to having done a wrong
action. To be right she thereafter had to burn dinners.
Go into a prison and find one sane prisoner who says he did wrong. You
won't find one. Only the broken wrecks will say so out of terror of being
hurt. But even they don't believe they did wrong.
A judge on a bench, sentencing criminals, would be given pause to
realize that not one malefactor sentenced really thought he had done wrong
and will never believe it in fact, though he may seek to avert wrath by
saying so.
The do-gooder crashes into this continually and is given his loses by
it.
But marriage, law and crime do not constitute all the spheres of living
where this applies. These facts embrace all of life. The student who can't
learn, the worker who can't work, the boss who can't boss are all caught on
one side of the right-wrong question. They are being completely one-sided.
They are being "last-ditch-right". And opposing them, those who would teach
them are fixed on the other side "admit-you are-wrong". And out of this we
get not only no-change but actual degradation where it "wins". But there
are no wins in this imbalance, only loses for both.
Thetans on the way down don't believe they are wrong because they don't
dare believe it. And so they do not change.
Many a preclear in processing is only trying to prove himself right and
the auditor wrong, particularly the lower case levels, and so we sometimes
get no-change sessions.
And those who won't be audited at all are totally fixed on asserted
rightness and are so close to gone that any question of their past
rightness would, they feel, destroy them.
I get my share of this when a being, close to extinction, and holding
contrary views, grasps for a moment the rightness of Scientology and then
in sudden defence asserts his own "rightnesses", sometimes close to terror.
It would be a grave error to go on letting an abuser of Scientology
abuse. The route is to get him or her to explain how right he or she is
without explaining how wrong Scientology is, for to do the last is to let
them commit a serious overt. "What is right about your mind" would produce
more case change and win more friends than any amount of evaluation or
punishment to make them wrong.
You can be right. How? By getting another to explain how he or she is
right-until he or she, being less defensive now, can take a less compulsive
point of view. You don't have to agree with what they think. You only have
to acknowledge what they say. And suddenly they can be right.
A lot of things can be done by understanding and using this mechanism.
It will take, however, some study of this article before it can be
gracefully applied-for all of us are reactive to some degree on this
subject. And those who sought to enslave us did not neglect to install a
right-wrong pair of items on the far back track. But these won't really get
in your way.
As Scientologists, we are faced by a frightened society who think they
would be wrong if we were found to be right. We need a weapon to correct
this. We have one here.
And you can be right, you know. I was probably the first to believe you
were, mechanism or no mechanism. The road to rightness is the road to
survival. And every person is somewhere on that scale.
You can make yourself right, amongst other ways, by making others right
enough to afford to change their minds. Then a lot more of us will arrive.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :gl.Jh.cden
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
(Note: This is the first in a series of HCO Bulletins designed for
publication in Continental Magazines. I am developing a whole presentation
of Scientology at this level for general use in life. Follow this HCO
Bulletin with the next in magazines.)
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963
Issue II
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
ORG TECHNICAL
HGC PROCESSES
AND TRAINING
(HCO Secs: Check out on all technical staff Star Rating.)
It is of the utmost importance that HGC Technical continues to be
maintained as the world's best auditing.
The whole repute of Scientology on a continent ultimately depends on
the quality of technical delivered by Central Organizations.
In times of shifting technology this may be considered difficult.
However, nothing in the book maintains that an HGC must only deliver "the
latest". The book only says the best.
Staff morale, the unit, broad dissemination depend basically upon
technical quality.
If you will look into even the oldest HGC files you will find profiles
with firm gains. This does not mean, then, that today's research line has
to be installed at once to get gains on pcs.
Of course to attain clear or OT today's research line is vital.
But the problem is not upper echelon processing in HGCs, it is lower
level cases.
If you go not on the basis of "make clears and OTs" but solely on the
basis of "get maximum Tone Arm Action on the pc" you will have very happy
pcs and eventual OTs.
To get Tone Arm Action it is necessary to
1. Have pcs who are getting wins and
2. Have staff auditors doing processes they can do
successfully.
HGC Gains then depend on:
A. Getting Tone Arm Action on every pc; and
B. Training Auditors to handle the five basics well.
Programming for HGC pcs depends on the pc and the auditor available.
PROGRAMMING PCS
The stable datum for programming a pc is:
RULE: RUN THE HIGHEST LEVEL PROCESS ON THE PC THAT CAN BE RUN THAT
PRODUCES GOOD TONE ARM ACTION.
The stable don't for programming a pc is:
RULE: DON'T RUN A PROCESS A PC FEELS HE OR SHE CANNOT DO OR THE AUDITOR
CANNOT DO.
You don't need to predetermine (and sometimes downgrade) a pc's level in
order to process him or her.
Programming has nothing to do with tests or hope or critical opinion.
Programming is a trial and error proposition based on:
C. What highest process gives the pc TA Action?
D. What process has the pc been interested in?
E. What process can the auditor do confidently?
PC INTEREST is a nearer certainty of needle reads on the meter and Tone
Arm Action than many other methods of assessment.
Any pc who has had earlier auditing can tell you what was or was not
interesting. A discussion of this with the pc will establish which type of
process it was. Don't necessarily just go on doing that process. But use it
to classify what type of process the pc will most likely have wins doing-
i.e. objective processes, repetitive processes, engram running, etc. A lot
of pcs are audited at levels they have no idea they can do. They will do
them, but a simple discussion about processes they have been interested in
doing will reveal to them and the auditor where they are most likely to get
TA Action with no strain.
GAINS
Gains on a pc can be measured in terms of charge discharged, not
necessarily in goals run out or some specific action done.
You can run out goals with no TA Action, run out engrams with no TA
Action and yet the pc does not change.
The goals set by the pc at session beginning change on a changing pc.
In reviewing cases watch those goals on the auditor's report. If they
deteriorate the auditor has messed it up, leaving by-passed charge. If they
remain the same session after session there was no real TA Action. If the
goals change session by session there's lots of TA Action, too.
You can just get lots of TA Action, whatever you run, and eventually
see a cleared pc.
No matter what is run, lack of TA Action will clear no one.
Wrong time is the exclusive source of no TA Action. Therefore as a pc's
time concept is improved or his dates corrected you will see more TA
Action. But many things contribute to wrong time, including bad meter
dating and time disorienting implants. The question is not what corrects
the pc's time so much as: is the pc getting the Tone Arm Action that shows
Time is being corrected. Well done auditing cycles alone correct a flawed
Time Concept.
So you have PC INTEREST, and TONE ARM ACTION that tell you the
programming is right and if the pc is going Clear and OT. Buck these things
and the pc won't go anywhere no matter what is run.
PRECAUTIONS
Wrong dates, wrong goals, wrong Items, by-passing charge, never
flattening a process, running a pc beyond regaining an ability or cogniting
the process flat account for most upset in auditing.
There is no valid reason for a pc getting upset now that ARC Break
assessments exist, providing that the auditor is auditing as per the next
section.
AUDITOR SKILL
Basic Auditor Skill consists of five things. If an auditor can do these
five, little further trouble will be found.
Any staff training programme, any Academy basic goal, any HGC Auditing
that produces results depend on these five basics.
If you review staff auditors or examine students on these basics by
themselves, all auditing would rest on solid ground and get gains. Where
any one of the following are out in an auditor there is going to be trouble
all along the line. No fancy new process will cure what is wrong in a
session if these things are not present.
The Basic Auditing Skills are:
1. ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE AUDITING CYCLE.
2. ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE AUDITING CYCLE REPETITIVELY.
3. ABILITY TO HANDLE A SESSION.
4. ABILITY TO READ A METER.
5. ABILITY TO STUDY AND APPLY SCIENTOLOGY DATA.
It takes very little to establish the presence or absence of these
abilities in an HGC Auditor or a Student. Each one can be reviewed easily.
View an auditor's ability to audit in the light of the above only. Put
him on TV for a half-hour rudiments and havingness actual session of any
Model Session he or she is trained to use, and watch l to 4 above. Then
give him or her an unstudied short HCO Bulletin and see how long it takes
for the auditor to pass a verbal exam on it.
A comparison of this data with a number of the staff auditor's HGC case
reports will show direct co-ordination. To the degree that few results were
obtained the auditor missed on l to 5 above. To the degree that good
results were obtained the auditor could pass l to 5 above. Inspection of
half a dozen different cases the auditor has done is necessary to see a
complete co-ordination.
There is your training stress for staff training programmes. Only when
the above skills are polished up do you dare to go into involved processes
with the auditor. For a more complicated process further throws out any
existing errors in the above five abilities and makes hash out of the lot.
During such a period, one can fall back on auditor confidence. What
process is the auditor confident he or she will get wins with? Well let him
or her run it on the current pc. And meanwhile, with training, smooth the
auditor out and get him or her genned in on higher level or more recent
processes.
Without an auditor, a case will not progress. And a case will progress
more with a confident auditor who can do something of what he or she is
doing than with an auditor who is shaky. For the shakiness will magnify any
faults in the five skills that the auditor has.
Auditors do by and large a pretty fine job. It takes a while to gen in
a new skill. I can do it in one or two sessions so it's not causing me any
strain. Mary Sue can get one straight in about four sessions. So nobody
expects a new skill to appear magically perfect in no time at all. But the
length of time it will take to groove in on a new skill depends on the five
abilities above.
The main auditor faults will be found in auditors who are trying so
hard themselves to be right that thee and me must be proven wrong. That
shows up most strongly in No. 5 above. The degree of disagreement an
auditor has with data measures the degree of unworkability that auditor
will enter into processing and this is the same degree that that auditor
thinks he or she has to preserve his or her survival by making
others wrong. This also enters into the other four abilities by a covert
effort to make the pc wrong. This is rare. But it is best measured by an
inability to accept data, and so can be tested by No. 5 above.
Processing on rightness and wrongness remedies this. Other processing
remedies it. And just practice remedies it. This factor is easily disclosed
as unhandled in some training courses where a blowing student sometimes
gives long dissertations on "What they don't agree with in Scientology."
That what they say doesn't exist in Scientology does not deter them from
believing it does, for their last spark of survival demands that only they
be right and all others wrong. Such a state of mind doesn't make a good
auditor since both Scientology and the pc must be made wrong. Squirrels are
only Case Levels 7 or 6 dramatizing alter-is on Scientology instead of
their track. Even they can be made to audit by long training even in the
absence of processing. They aren't just trying to make others wrong.
Essentially that is the characteristic of a Case Level 8, Unaware. There
aren't many of these around. Auditing and training can handle them, even if
it takes a long time. Such people would almost die literally if they found
they had ever been wrong and they get quite ill with aplomb just to prove
you are wrong; it goes that far.
Case Level or sanity have little to do with anything when it comes to
training auditors. Insanity is a goal "To be Insane", not an index of
potential auditing ability. And only Case Level 8 does a complete shatter
of a session as an auditor.
Take these factors into first account in an HGC.
Don't keep a staff upset by shifting processes continually. Processing
is pretty stable which is why I can give you this expectancy for a new high
level performance in HGC. Groove the staff auditor in for wins and TA
Action. And all will be well. Groove them in by processes only and all will
be chaos.
And in the Academy stress this data and teach the five abilities above
beyond all other data and you'll have auditors. If the HGC could expect
from an Academy graduates who had the five abilities listed above, everyone
would get more comfortable.
An HGC need not have to run a school of its own to provide itself with
auditors.
SUMMARY
The data I have given you in this HCO Bulletin is not subject to change
or modification.
HGC pcs will only win if they are run so as to obtain good TA Action.
The HGC will have trouble achieving that only to the degree that its
staff has not achieved the five abilities above.
We are building on very solid ground. All actions we now undertake in
the HGC and Academy should contribute to successful auditing, for out of
that alone can clearing be achieved.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JULY 1963
Central Orgs
for info
Sthil
SHSBC
AUDITING RUNDOWN
MISSED WITHHOLDS
TO BE RUN IN X 1 UNIT
(supersedes HCO Bulletin of July 11, 1963, same title,
which was issued to Sthil SHSBC only)
1. Ask pc following question:
"In this lifetime what have you done that you have withheld from
someone?"
2. When pc has answered ask:
(a) "When was it?"
(b) "Where was it?"
(c) "Who failed to find out about it?"
(d) "Who nearly found out about it?"
(e) "Who still doesn't know about it?"
Each withhold and answer must be written down and the sheet of
withholds and answers must be turned in with the auditing report.
The sheet will be made available to all instructors on the Briefing
Course.
The above suggestion was made by Bernie Pesco, Saint Hill Special
Briefing Course student, and accepted for use.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw jh
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
23 - 25 July 1 963
** 6307C23 SHSBC-288 Between Lives Implants
** 6307C24 SHSBC-289 ARC Breaks and the Comm Cycle-The Revised
Model
Session
** 6307C25 SHSBC-290 Comm Cycles in Auditing [see page 340 for
graphs]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JULY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
STAR RATING TIME AND THE TONE ARM
(HCO Secs: Check out on all Technical staff except
for percentage of cases which is not Star Rated)
I recently completed a study begun many years ago which gives us new
hope and easier auditing of difficult cases.
We have known for many years (Dianetic Axioms) that Time is the Single
Source of human aberration. This did not have the importance it deserved.
To make an OT one has to clear the Time Track.
This seemed very easy when I discovered a few months ago that anybody
can run an engram. The reasons one can't are just (1) wrong time of the
incident, (2) wrong duration of the incident, (3) incident may contain an
implanted GPM or (4) it may be false track (therefore having wrong time and
wrong duration).
So anybody that can be put into an auditing session can run Time Track
with good perception. If the perceptions aren't there it's just wrong time
or wrong duration or both, or it's a GPM in which case one reverts at once
to R3N, or it's false track in which event one finds accurately when it was
installed and the duration of that incident.
All apparent grouping of the track comes either from wrong time or
false track (which is also wrong time). Either one looks like incidents are
grouping.
Well, that seemed to wrap up clearing and OT, but I still didn't
broadly release it; I wanted to be sure. I don't mind being wrong but I
dislike making you wrong in your auditing, it's already happened too often.
So I carefully researched this all over again and found it was not
enough just to clean track. One had to run track with TONE ARM MOTION.
That's the real barrier to clear and OT, given the above data. One can
run incidents and GPMs but do these when run give Tone Arm Motion?
Without Tone Arm Motion no charge is being released and no actual case
betterment is observed beyond a few somatics removed. The pc's session
goals stay the same. The pc's life doesn't change.
So the clue to OT (and clear) is Tone Arm Motion. It must exist during
the session. If it doesn't something is wrong.
At first I thought that a dating prepcheck "On Dating" or "On Dates"
would re-establish all ceased TA action. It will up to a point and is
valuable.
Repair of cases must contain such a Prepcheck and also discovering
wrong dates and durations on engrams and GPMs. This is vital.
But it will not make some cases continue to get TA motion on the Time
Track.
If a case, even when cleaned up on dating and properly assessed for
level and Item in R3R or on R3N, does not then get TA motion on running
track, another factor is present.
What is that factor? The pc has a "fragile Tone Arm". Just one wrong
date or duration in R3R or just one wrong RI in R3N and Tone Arm Action
ceases, the TA going way up or down and staying there. Stuck TA cases then
give us a type of case.
So I knew there was another factor involved rather than Time alone. Time
remains the single source. But a pc's regard for or attitude about Time can
make it difficult for the auditor to run R3R or R3N.
Regard for Time sums up, of course, into ARC about Time, or just ARC.
THE MECHANICS OF TIME
As in earlier writings Time is actual but is also an apparency. (See
Dianetics '55 or other similar material.) Time is measured by motion.
Motion is Matter with energy in space. Thus a person can conceive of Time
as only Matter and energy in space. Such as a clock or a planetary
rotation. Time is actual. But the person has become so dependent on Matter
moving in space to tell Time that his Time Sense has become dependent on
Matter, energy and space.
We care only for TA action. Our opinion of a pc's Time Sense is
unimportant. Does the pc get TA action on R3R and/or R3N? If so, the pc's
Time Sense is okay for making OT straight away. If not, if the TA is
"fragile" (sticks easily high or low) then the pc's Time Sense needs
improving.
Time Sense deteriorates to the degree that one has depended upon
Matter, energy and space to tell Time (and on Time Confusing Implants such
as false track; however, running out false track on a no TA motion case is
not an answer).
The dwindling spiral was as follows:
State A - Time Sense.
State B - Time Sense dependent upon Matter, Energy and Space.
State C - ARC Breaks with Matter, Energy, Space and other
beings.
State D - Deteriorated Time Sense.
By the time State D is thoroughly reached, you have a pc who gets no TA
motion running track, as energy will not flow in the absence of Time.
There are four degrees of "Poor Time Sense". The first is average and
common but is not enough to impair TA action. The TA sticks but getting
wrong dates off restores TA action which then continues. The second is a
case that has to be continuously repaired and delicately handled to get any
TA action at all. The third is a case that gets TA action on repetitive
processes or rudiments but not on GPMs or engram running (while silently
moving through an engram few people get TA action; this comes when they
answer "What happened?": the third under consideration doesn't get any TA
even when answering "What happened?" and rarely if ever RRs). The fourth is
a case that gets no TA action on repetitive processes and very little if
any on Rudiments.
The four types of "Poor Time Sense" compare to
Case Level 5-(first type above) Gets TA action only when wrong
dates are cleaned up.
Case Level 6-(second above) Gets TA action only with constant
careful handling and TA action always packing up.
Case Level 7-(third above) TA action only on some repetitive
processes and rudiments.
Case Level 8-(fourth above) No TA action on repetitive processes
and only now and then on rudiments.
Case Levels 2 to 4 get TA action no matter what happens.
This then (TA Action) is your best index of Case Levels. IQ, graphs,
tests, behaviour in life are all incidental.
Identification (A=A=A) is most easily present when Time Sense is awry,
therefore, the degree a person Identifies different things establishes the
degree of aberration.
PROGRAMMING
Cases are programmed only against TA Action obtainable in auditing.
A case must not be run without TA Action or with minimal TA Action.
A case may be a Case Level 5 and need only a few wrong dates and
durations corrected to get good TA Action. But it may also be a Case Level
6, 7 or 8.
Trial and error programming is best. Programme high and drop low, no
matter what the morale factor may be.
Try to run GPMs, the Goal to Forget, etc, with R3N. If it can't be
done, assess for R3R (Preliminary Step) and run a chain of engrams. If
still no TA, drop to processes for Case Level 7. If still no TA, drop to
processes for Case Level 8.
You may see by the pc's past auditor's reports what the Case Level is.
How stuck has that TA been?
Don't run a case lower than it easily gets TA Action.
And don't brand a case at a low case level and then never graduate it
upwards. When the lower process is flat, the upper process should now be
runnable.
The story is told by the TA with one exception-auditor ability and
training. But Case Levels 2, 3, 4 are not all that influenced by the
auditor ability. The auditor's skill has to be pretty good to run Case
Level 5 on R3R and R3N.
The auditor doesn't live who can run R3R or R3N on Case Levels 6, 7 or
8. It just won't run.
In the guess department the bulk of the cases about are 4s and 5s. A
good-sized percentage are 6s and 7s. About 10% are Case Level 8. About 10%
are Case Level 3. Therefore about 30% of a usual group of pcs will run with
good TA on the Time Track, given trained auditing, without trouble. Another
30% will run with good TA on the Time Track with careful coddling and no
serious date goofs. Except for the 1% Case 3, the rest will fall into Case
Levels 6, 7 and 8, meaning that about 39% of the cases in Scientology won't
run at once on R3R or R3N, and another 30% (Case Level 5s) need a Saint
Hiller hanging over the auditor's shoulder or in the chair. And the other
30% (Case Level 4s) will run very well and easily on R3R and R3N.
So the biggest percentage group (Case Levels 6, 7, 8 combined) need
special processes to graduate up to action with R3R and R3N.
These Case Level 6, 7 and 8 processes now exist and are being released
as rapidly as they are demonstrated workable. R2H for Case Levels 5 and 6
has already been released. R2HL for Case Levels 6 and 7 is being readied up
for bulletin. The Corner Process and others for Case Level 8 are tested and
the data is being assembled. And other advances can be made.
To audit easily and relaxed with good TA Action on the pc is my
immediate desire for auditors and auditing supervisors. I feel we are over
the hump on this. The fundamental solution to it-Time and the Tone Arm-is
contained in this HCO Bulletin.
Don't audit a pc without getting TA Action. Either repair the wrong
dates and durations before going on or drop to processes of a lower case
level or both.
ARC Breaks in session won't stop a TA. Only Time errors.
L. RON HUBBARD
LKH:jw.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY REVIEW
(HCO Secs, take up at a Staff Meeting.
Field Auditors, take up at group meetings.)
Exactly where are we technically, personally and organizationally?
It may be of some surprise to you that we have just about arrived.
We've been so long on the road that some fainter hearts have begun to
despair and less high case levels have begun to gloom.
Since last October I have been cracking through trying to get there
before we were got.
It now is obvious that we have made it and even if we were hard hit
socially or politically we would still make it. For we have the data.
I have not had time to get it all to you yet, but the data is now
assembled for OT for everyone who can be audited at all. You already have
most of it.
On the various PTPs of Scientology we have had some very significant
wins as follows:
1. The discoveries about Time and the Tone Arm (HCO Bulletin of July 28,
AD 13) related to case levels tells us if a case is winning, why it isn't
winning and how to make it win, and gives us far less worries as auditors
auditing cases. For some time now, overlooking four score of cases, many
very rough, I have been breathing easy. And they're all winning.
2. Getting cases to RR on GPMs is entirely a matter of auditing those
cases who don't on current basic processes until they do. So it isn't a
worry about getting the case to RR. It's only how to get the case to run
with TA action and get high enough to RR and run GPMs. We have the patterns
and technology needful now.
3. ARC Breaky Cases. The ARC Break Assessments correctly done finish the
problem of the consequences of ARC Breaks and put the Auditor at cause over
ARC Breaks.
4. Natter. Persons who get auditing and natter, staff members who snap
and snarl, bad morale, all wrap up in the ARC Break Assessments. This, done
weekly in any group on group members, clearing every line, restores a theta
atmosphere.
5. Incredulity of our data and validity. This is our finest asset and
gives us more protection than any other single thing. If certain parties
thought we were real we would have infinitely more trouble. There's actual
terror in the breast of a guilty person at the thought of OT, and without a
public incredulity we never would have gotten as far as we have. And now
it's too late to be stopped. This protection was accidental but it serves
us very well indeed. Remember that the next time the ignorant scoff.
6. The cold war has gotten less threatening, differences are less
violent. We have had the time we needed.
7. Government attacks have entered a more desultory stage. Meters will
go to jury trial eventually and we will certainly win. The U.S. Government
Attorney handling the case became terribly ill and had to resign it.
8. Economic Problems. In organizations gross income is generally on the
increase throughout the world, and shows no signs of dwindling and all this
in the face of bad press. Personal income depends upon steady
organizational gains and more positive results on pcs. Future personal
income is without ceiling.
9. Personal States of Case. If you heed HCO Bulletin of July 28, AD13
and are getting good Tone Arm action on any process you will eventually
make OT. OT is wholly a matter of consistent Tone Arm motion, session after
session, not the significance of what is run.
10. State of Training as Auditors. Although I would like to see more
auditors trained at Saint Hill, general training has improved and training
data is complete. Shortened training time will soon be a reality. A new
positive goal for HPA/HCAs will make more good auditors. I feel very good
about general auditing ability. I recently summed up the basic skills of
auditing and find that over the years we have been working right along and
winning on training. All training done has been to the good. Changing
technology has not influenced the basic skills and forthcoming material
follows the pattern in which we have been trained.
OTHER PROBLEMS
Solutions unexpectedly leaped up in fields where we were only vaguely
aware of problems.
We bought an awful lot of time with the discovery of the exact nature
of between lives implants and how it's worked. Using this data it is
possible to keep any Scientologist from ever getting another one of those
implants. As the general course of living is therapeutic, it takes violent
implants such as Earth people get at every death to keep people unaware of
former lives and aberrated. Just by omitting those implants and using their
reporting technology to keep in touch amongst ourselves, we would salvage
the lot in a few hundred years in any event. Our data is too widely
disseminated to be re-collected and burned.
And just the other day I was personally looking over their shoulders.
World clearing is possible without extensive Auditing if we just keep
our own show on the road and keep track of each other.
This was a breakthrough I didn't expect. And it's all ours.
The discovery of false pasts and futures was also a bonus. For it means
more TA action on more cases and faster clearing. It's doubtful if ordinary
track ever hurt anybody.
SUMMARY
All we've got to do is keep going as we are for things to improve now.
The only thing which could slow us down is our own self-created
dissidence. All we have to do is do our jobs and keep the peace and we've
got it.
The make-break point is behind us. Ahead are only better days,
improving little by little, day by day.
We've made it over the worst part.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :dr.cden
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 AUGUST 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
A II. ROUTINES
E-METER ERRORS
COMMUNICATION CYCLE ERROR
The E-Meter has its role in all processing and must be used well.
However an E-Meter can be misused in several ways.
METER DEPENDENCE
The meter in actual fact does nothing but locate charged areas below the
awareness of the pc and verify that the charge has been removed. The meter
cures nothing and does not treat. It only assists the auditor in assisting
the preclear to look and verify having looked.
A pc can be made more dependent upon the meter or can be made more
independent of the meter, all in the way a meter is used by the Auditor.
If a pc's case is improving the pc becomes more independent of the
meter. This is the proper direction.
Meter dependence is created by invalidation by or poor acknowledgement
of the Auditor. If the Auditor seems not to accept the pc's data, then the
pc may insist that the Auditor "see it read on the meter". This can grow up
into a formidable meter dependence on the part of the pc.
The rise of the TA is a "What's It?" The Fall of a meter TA is an "It's
a _____." To get maximum charge off, the pc's groping (What's It) must
become a pc's finding (It's a). If the pc asks the Auditor what or which
reads on the meter and the Auditor always complies, the pc's TA will rise
more and fall less as the pc is saying, "What's It?" and only the meter is
saying, "It's a_____."
A pc must be carefully weaned of meter dependence, not abruptly chopped
off. The pc says, "What's It?" The Auditor must begin to ask occasionally,
"Well, What's It seem to you?" and the pc will find his own "It's a _____"
and the TA will fall-as it would not if only the meter were employed.
Milking the TA of all the action you can get requires that the pc get
most of the "It's a's" for his "What's Its". (See diagram attached.)
DATING DEPENDENCE
RULE: USE THE METER TO DATE AND VERIFY DATE CORRECTNESS BY ALL MEANS
BUT ONLY AFTER THE PC HAS BEEN UNABLE TO COME UP WITH THE DATE.
Example: Pc can't decide, after much puzzling, if it was 1948 or 1949.
Finally, the Auditor says, "1948" "1949" and sees the meter reads on 1948
and says, "It was 1948." But if the pc says, "It was 1948," the Auditor
only checks it if the TA sticks up higher, meaning probably a wrong date.
He checks with, "In this session have we had a wrong date? That reads, what
date was wrong?" and lets the pc argue it out with himself-TA action will
restore.
RIs
Reliable Items have to be clean. The pc can usually tell. But the pc
can't tell the right RI out of a list or the right goal unless the Auditor
sees it RR or fall. But sometimes the Auditor thinks an RI is clean (no
longer reads having read) when it still has somatics on it. In this case
it's suppressed and the Auditor checks it for suppress.
The pc saying the RI is not clean (should still be reading) carries more
weight than the meter.
As the pc gets along in running Time Track and GPMs with their goals
and Reliable Items he or she often becomes better than the meter as to what
is right or wrong, what is the goal, what RI still reads.
METER INVALIDATION
An Auditor who just sits and shakes his head, "Didn't Rocket Read" can
give a pc too many loses and deteriorate the pc's ability to run GPMs.
In a conflict between pc and meter, take the pc's data. Why? Because
Protest and Assert and Mistake will also read on a meter. You can get these
off, but why create them?
The meter is not there to invalidate the pc. Using the meter to
invalidate the pc is bad form.
You'll have less trouble by taking the pc's data for the pc will
eventually correct it.
The meter is invaluable in locating by-passed charge and curing an ARC
Break. But it can be done without a meter, just by letting the pc think
over each line read to him or her from the ARC Break Assessment and say
whether it is or isn't and if it is, spotting the thing by-passed.
CLEANING CLEANS
The Auditor who cleans a clean meter is asking for trouble.
This is the same as asking a pc for something that isn't there and
develops a "withhold of nothing".
Example: Ask "Do you have a present time problem?" Get no needle
reaction. Ask the pc for the PTP that hasn't read. That is impossible for
the pc to answer. That's what's meant by cleaning a clean.
DIRTY NEEDLE
All dirty needles are caused by the Auditor failing to hear all the pc
had to say in answering a question or volunteering data.
Charge is removed from a case only by the Comm Cycle pc to Auditor.
The Auditor's command restimulates a charge in the pc. The only way
this charge can be blown is by the pc telling the Auditor.
"Auditor" means "A listener". The Auditor who has not learned to listen
gets:
First - Dirty Needle
Next - Stuck Tone Arm
Finally - ARC Break
The most important line in Auditing is from pc to Auditor. If this line
is open and not hurried or chopped you get no Dirty Needles and Lots of TA
Action.
To continuously get in Auditor to pc and impede the line pc to Auditor
is to pile up endless restimulated charge on a case.
RULE: TONE ARM ACTION OF ANY KIND WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT'S
BEHIND IT WILL TAKE A PC TO OT EVENTUALLY.
RULE: THE MOST CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN BUT WITHOUT TA ACTION
WILL NOT CHANGE BUT CAN DETERIORATE A CASE.
RULE: THE CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN WITH TA ACTION WILL ATTAIN OT
FASTEST.
Thus we see that an Auditor can get everything right except TA action and
not make an OT. And we see that TA action without running specific things
will make an OT, (though it might take a thousand years).
Therefore TA action is superior to what is run. Running the right
things with TA action is faster only.
Thus the line pc to Auditor is somewhat senior to the Comm Line Auditor
to pc. (See diagram.)
Don't get the idea that the process is not important. It is. People
were made to talk in psychoanalysis without getting anywhere but there they
probably had no TA and ran the wrong significances. It takes the right
process correctly run to get TA action. So don't underrate processes or the
action of the Auditor.
Realize that the answering of the process question is senior to the
asking of another process question. A pc could talk for years without
getting any TA action. Got it? So listen as long as a TA moves.
Learn to see if the pc has said everything he or she wants to say
before the next Auditor action, never do a new Auditor action while or if
the pc wants to speak and you'll get superior TA action. Cut the pc off,
get in more actions than the pc is allowed to answer and you'll have a
Dirty Needle, then a stuck TA and then an ARC Break.
See the attached drawing of this. And all will suddenly get clearer
about any pc you've audited. And trouble will evaporate.
By cutting the "Itsa Line" an Auditor can make case gain disappear.
"Learn To Listen." That's what "Auditor" means.
It has taken me so long to see this in others because I don't cut the
pc's line very often and repair it fast when I do. So forgive me for
bringing it up so late.
When the pc is talking and you're getting no TA, you already have an
ARC Break or are about to get one. So assess the by-passed charge.
RULE: DON'T DEMAND MORE THAN THE PC CAN TELL YOU.
RULE: DON'T RECEIVE LESS THAN THE PC HAS TO SAY.
Watch the pc's eyes. Don't take auditing actions if the pc is not
looking at you.
Don't give acknowledgements that aren't needed. Over acknowledgement
means acknowledging before the pc has said all.
SUMMARY
Running the right process is vital. Getting TA action on the right
process is skilled auditing.
Listening is superior to asking.
Build up the pc's confidence in his own knowingness and continuously
and progressively reduce the pc's dependence on a meter.
LRH:dr.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6308C06 SHSBC-291 Auditing Comm Cycles-Definition of an
Auditor
** 6308C07 SHSBC-292 R-2H Fundamentals [see page 343 for
graph]
** 6308C08 SHSBC-293 R-2H Assessment [see page 344 for graph]
[pic]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 AUGUST 1963
HCO Secs
Org Secs
Franchise
Field
BPI
DEFINITION OF RELEASE
(Cancels HCO Bulletin of 14 January 1963)
A RELEASE is one who knows he or she has had worthwhile gains from
Scientology processing and who knows he or she will not now get worse.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :dr.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 AUGUST 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS
In a session don't ever do an ARC Break Assessment until the pc has
given up trying to untangle it. This particularly applies to R3R and 3N.
DATES R2H
Don't ever date anything for the pc until the pc has completely given
up trying himself.
DON'T USE METERING, ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS, DATING, or incomprehensible
or new commands to CUT THE ITSA LINE. Let it run. Help only when it's
stopped.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :dr jh
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST 1963
Central Orgs
LECTURE GRAPHS
The following graphs accompany Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lectures
of:
July 25, AD 13
August 7, AD 13
August 8, AD 13
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:dr.cden
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
14-15 August 1963
** 6308C14 SHSBC-294 Auditing Tips
** 6308C15 SHSBC-295 The Tone Arm
[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 AUGUST AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY TWO
STAR RATED HCO BULLETIN
HOW TO DO AN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT
(HCO Secs: Check out on all technical Executives and Personnel. Tech
Dir: Check out on HCO Secs and Assn Org Secs.)
The successful handling of an ARC Break Assessment is a skilled
activity which requires:
1. Skill in handling a Meter.
2. Skill in handling the Itsa Line of the Auditing Cycle.
3. Skill in Assessment.
The lists given in HCO Bulletin of July 5, AD13 "ARC BREAK
ASSESSMENTS", are used, either from that HCO Bulletin or amended.
There are several uses for ARC Break Assessments.
1. Cleaning up a session ARC Break.
2. Cleaning up auditing in general.
3. Cleaning up a pc's or student's possible ARC Breaks.
4. Cleaning up a member of the public's possible or actual ARC
Breaks.
5. Regular use on a weekly basis on staff or organization members.
There are others. Those above are the chief uses.
For long time periods the standard 18 button prepcheck is faster, but
an ARC Break Assessment is still useful in conjunction with it.
The drill is simple. If complicated by adding in R2H material, dating,
and other additives, the ARC Break Assessment ceases to work well and may
even create more ARC Breaks.
If used every time a pc gets in a little trouble in R3N or R3R the ARC
Break Assessment is being used improperly. In R2H, R3N, R3R sessions it is
used only when the pc shows definite signs of an ARC Break. To use it
oftener constitutes no auditing.
Unnecessary use of an ARC Break Assessment may ARC Break the pc with
the Assessment.
The ARC Break Assessment may be repaired by an 18 Button Prepcheck "On
ARC Break Assessments ......".
ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT BY STEPS
STEP ONE:
Select the proper list. This is done by establishing what the pc has
been audited on. If more than one type of by-passed charge is suspected, do
more than one list. If the ARC Break is not completely cured by one list,
do another kind of list. (All lists have been in HCOBs as "L".)
STEP TWO:
Inform the pc that you are about to assess for any charge that might
have been restimulated or by-passed on his or her case. Do not heavily
stress the ARC Break aspect. Right: "I am going to assess a list to see if
any charge has been by-passed on your case." Wrong: "I'm going to try to
cure (or assess) your ARC Break."
STEP THREE:
Without regard to pc's natter, but with quick attention for any
cognition the pc may have during assessment as to by-passed charge, assess
the list.
Phrase the question in regard to the reason for the Assessment-"In this
session........" "During this week ......." "In Scientology ........" etc.
Call each line once to see if it gives an instant read.
The moment a line gives a reaction, stop, and do Step Four.
STEP FOUR:
When a line reacts on the needle, say to the pc, "The line
........reacts. What can you tell me about this?"
STEP FIVE:
Keep Itsa Line in. Do not cut the pc's line. Do not ask for more than
pc has. Let pc flounder around until pc finds the charge asked for in Step
Four or says there's no such charge. (If a line reacted because the pc did
not understand it, or by protest or decide, make it right with the pc and
continue assessing.)
STEP SIX:
In a session: If pc found the by-passed charge, ask pc "How do you feel
now?" If pc says he or she feels OK, cease assessing for ARC Breaks and go
back to session actions. If pc says there's no such charge or gets
misemotional at Auditor, keep on assessing on down the list for another
active line, or even on to another list until the charge is found which
makes pc relax.
In a routine ARC Break check (not a session but for a longer period),
don't stop assessing but keep on going as in Step Five, unless pc's
cognition is huge.
END OF STEPS
Please notice: This is not R2H. There is no dating. The auditor does
not further assist the pc with the meter in any way.
If the pc blows up in your face on being given a type of charge, keep
going, as you have not yet found the charge. Typical response to wrong
charge found: Pc: "Well of course it's a cut communication! You've been
cutting my communication the whole session. You ought to be retreaded ..
etc." Note here that pc's attention is still on auditor. Therefore the
correct charge has not been found. If the by-passed charge has been found
the pc will relax and look for it, attention on own case.
Several by-passed charges can exist and be found on one list. Therefore
in cleaning up a week or an intensive or a career (any long period) treat a
list like rudiments, cleaning everything that reacts.
Blow down of the Tone Arm is the meter reaction of having found the
correct by-passed charge. Keep doing Steps One to Six until you get a blow
down of the Tone Arm. The pc feeling better and being happy about the ARC
Break will coincide almost always with a Tone Arm Blow Down.
You can, however, undo a session ARC Break Assessment by continuing
beyond the pc's cognition of what it is. Continuing an assessment after the
pc has cognited, invalidates the pc's cognition and cuts the Itsa Line and
may cause a new ARC Break.
Rarely, but sometimes, the ARC Break is handled with no TA blow down.
PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT
The purpose of an ARC Break Assessment is to return the pc into session
or into Scientology or into an Org or course. By-passed charge can cause
the person to blow out of session, or out of an Org or a course or
Scientology.
WITH A SESSION (formerly "in"): Is defined as "INTERESTED IN OWN CASE AND
WILLING TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR". AGAINST SESSION: Against session is
defined as "ATTENTION OFF OWN CASE AND TALKING AT THE AUDITOR IN PROTEST OF
AUDITOR, PT AUDITING, ENVIRONMENT OR SCIENTOLOGY".
WITH SCIENTOLOGY: With Scientology is defined as "INTERESTED IN SUBJECT AND
GETTING IT USED". AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY: Against Scientology is defined as
"ATTENTION OFF SCIENTOLOGY AND PROTESTING SCIENTOLOGY BEHAVIOUR OR
CONNECTIONS".
WITH ORGANIZATION: With organization can be defined as "INTERESTED IN ORG
OR POST AND WILLING TO COMMUNICATE WITH OR ABOUT ORG". AGAINST
ORGANIZATION: Against organizationness is defined as "AGAINST ORGANIZATION
OR POSTS AND PROTESTING AT ORG BEHAVIOUR OR EXISTENCE" .
The data about ARC Breaks can be expanded to marriage, companies, jobs,
etc. Indeed to all dynamics-With Dynamic, Against Dynamic.
What it boils down to is this: There are only two conditions of living,
but many shades of grey to each one.
These conditions are:
1. LIFE: NOT ARC BROKEN: Capable of some affinity for, some
reality about and some communication with the environment; and
2. DEATH: ARC BROKEN: Incapable of affinity for, reality about and
communication with the environment.
Under One we have those who can disenturbulate themselves and make some
progress in life.
Under Two we have those who are in such protest that they are stopped
and can make little or no progress in life.
One, we consider to be in some ARC with existence.
Two, we consider to be broken in ARC with existence.
In a session or handling the living lightning we handle, people can be
hit by a forceful charge of which they are only minutely aware but which
swamps them. Their affinity, reality and communication (life force) is
retarded or cut by this hidden charge and they react with what we call an
ARC Break or have an ARC Broken aspect.
If they know what charge it is they do not ARC Break or they cease to
be ARC Broken.
It is the unknown character of the charge that causes it to have such a
violent effect on the person.
People do not ARC Break on known charge. It is always the hidden or the
earlier charge that causes the ARC Break.
This makes life look different (and more understandable). People
continuously explain so glibly why they are acting as badly as they are.
Whereas, if they really knew, they would not act that way. When the true
character of the charge (or many charges as in a full case) is known to the
person the ARC Break ceases.
How much by-passed charge does it take to make a case? The whole sum of
past by-passed charge.
This fortunately for the pc is not all of it in constant restimulation.
Therefore the person stays somewhat in one piece but prey to any
restimulation.
Auditing selectively restimulates, locates the charge and discharges it
(as seen on the action of a moving Tone Arm).
However, accidental rekindlings of past charge unseen by pc or auditor
occur and the pc "mysteriously" ARC Breaks.
Similarly people in life get restimulated also, but with nobody to
locate the charge. Thus Scientologists are lucky.
In heavily restimulated circumstances the person goes OUT OF. In such a
condition people want to stop things, cease to act, halt life, and failing
this they try to run away.
As soon as the actual by-passed charge is found and recognized as the
charge by the person, up goes Affinity and Reality and Communication and
life can be lived.
Therefore ARC Breaks are definite, their symptoms are known, their cure
is very easy with this understanding and technology.
An ARC Break Assessment seeks to locate the charge that served, being
hidden, as a whip-hand force on the person. When it is located life
returns. Locating the actual by-passed charge is returning life to the
person.
Therefore, properly handling ARC Breaks can be called, with no
exaggeration "Returning Life to the person".
One further word of caution: As experience will quickly tell you,
seeking to do anything at all with an earlier by-passed charge incident
which led to the ARC Break immediately the earlier incident is found will
lead to a vast mess.
Let the pc talk about it all the pc pleases. But don't otherwise try to
run it, date it or seek to find what by-passed charge caused the earlier
incident. In assessing for ARC Breaks, keep the Itsa Line in very well and
keep the What's It out in every respect except as contained in the above
Six Steps.
SUMMARY
An ARC Break Assessment is simple stuff, so simple people are almost
certain to complicate it. It only works when kept simple.
Old auditors will see a similarity in an ARC Break Assessment List and
old end rudiments. They can be handled much the same but only when one is
covering a long time period. Otherwise assess only to cognition and drop
it.
The trouble in ARC Break Assessments comes from additives by the
auditor, failure to keep on with additional lists if the type of charge
causing the ARC Break isn't found on the first list chosen, failure to read
the meter, and failure to keep the Itsa Line in.
Doing ARC Break Assessments to cure ARC Breaks is not the same drill as
R2H and confusing the two leads to trouble.
Handled skillfully as above, ARC Break Assessing cures the great
majority of woes of auditing, registraring, training and handling
organization. If you find you aren't making ARC Break Assessments work for
you check yourself out on this HCO Bulletin carefully, review your meter
reading and examine your handling of the Itsa Line. If you want live people
around you, learn to handle ARC Break Assessments.
Don't worry about pcs getting ARC Breaks. Worry about being able to
cure them with assessment until you have confidence you can. There's
nothing so uplifting as that confidence, except perhaps the ability to make
any case get TA motion.
Don't ever be "reasonable" about an ARC Break and think the pc is
perfectly right to be having one "because ......". If that ARC Break
exists, the pc doesn't know what's causing it and neither do you until you
and the pc find it! If you and the pc knew what was causing it, there would
be no further ARC Break.
LRH:dr.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise SCIENTOLOGY THREE & FOUR
R3R-R3N
THE PRECLEAR'S POSTULATES
We have long known that the preclear's postulates made at the time of
the incident contained charge.
As the preclear is moved back on his time track beyond Trillions Three,
you will find that incidents and Reliable Items contain less charge
proportionately to the pc (who was stronger then) and that the pc's
postulates made then contained more charge.
In short as you go earlier on the Time Track, the incidents seemed
weaker to the pc then and the pc, being more capable, had stronger
postulates.
Thus it is not uncommon to find a GPM on the early track producing only
falls on the pc and the pc's postulates made at that time rocket reading
(or falling).
This, in fact, gets even more disproportionate so that on the very
early track you might find that running RIs out of a GPM produces no TA
motion, but taking the pc's postulates out produces a TA blow down that
"goes through 7" (around the whole TA dial and back up).
In my recent surveys of the Tone Arm and its relationship to auditing,
it became apparent that three types of charge existed in a GPM.
1. Charge as an engram.
2. Charge as Reliable Items.
3. Charge as postulates.
All three must be removed from a GPM.
Any incident, wherever it is on the track, contains postulates
(comments, considerations, directions) made by the pc at that time.
Thus in all incidents the pc's postulates must be called for and
removed.
To remove a postulate from any incident, have the pc repeat it until it
no longer reacts on the needle of the meter. If it comes down to a
persistent tick get suppress off it and get it repeated again, just as in
the case of any RI in a GPM.
DON'T LEAVE POSTULATES CHARGED.
Treat them like GPM Items whether in a GPM or an engram.
Add to your ARC Break L lists L3 and L4, "Have we by-passed any
postulates?"
There are implants which tell the pc not to erase his own postulates.
There is also a Bear Series Goal "To Postulate"
Sometimes the postulate lies ahead of the actual engram in R3R.
Example: A man decides to get hurt, then enters into an engramic situation.
The engram does not wholly free until the postulate is removed.
Occasional calling for "any postulates, considerations or comments you had
in this incident" while running R3R engrams or R3N will keep the incident
going well. When the pc says one, have him or her repeat it until it no
longer reacts on the needle.
I bring this up at this time as I have found a case that got no TA
action on engrams or GPMs or RRs on RIs until the postulates were given
special attention, at which time TA action of an excellent kind occurred.
SUMMARY
A stuck TA is always caused by running the pc above the pc's tolerance
of charge. You can stop any TA by ramming the pc into incident after
incident without cleaning them up. A postulate is only one kind of charge.
At any position on the Time Track also look for the pc's postulates.
Early on the Time Track expect them to occasionally "blow the Meter apart".
Flatten any postulate found by getting it repeated until the reaction
is gone off the needle. And all charge, of course, on anything, whether
falls or RRs, must be removed from engrams or GPMs.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dr.bh
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
20-21 August 1963
** 6308C20 SHSBC-296 The Itsa Line
** 6308C21 SHSBC-297 The Itsa Line (cont.)
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 AUGUST AD13
Route Copy to:
HCO Area Sec
Org/Assn Sec TECH PREPARATION
D of P FOR HCO POL LTR 21 AUG AD 13
Head of Staff Co-audit
PE Director
PROJECT 80
THE ITSA LINE AND TONE ARM
The HCO Area Secretary should cause to be played to staff the SHSBC LRH
lectures of:
14 August AD 13
15 August AD 13
20 August AD 13
21 August AD 13
22 August AD 13
These lectures contain all the material necessary for great technical
improvement in the organization in both training and processing and
particularly on the staff co-audit.
Public Dissemination via PE and outside unskilled co-audit is resolved
in these lectures.
A great many questions, complications and additives can grow up around
the Itsa Line so as to amount to several brands of Scientology. These are
taken up in great detail in these lectures.
This is part of a programme to bring home to Central Organizations the
current ease of getting acceptable results in the Academy, on the HGC and
in the Co-audit by use of only the Tone Arm and Itsa Line. And carry
forward the groundwork for outside co-auditing and broader dissemination.
We are building all future processing, training and dissemination on
the very firm foundation of the definition of an auditor (one who listens),
the Itsa Line (listen to the preclear) and the solution of problems (the
preclear is always right). This communicates with extreme ease and
simplicity.
We are building all professional auditing on the Itsa Line, plus
directing pc's attention plus the Tone Arm.
We are building all top skill auditing on the Itsa Line, directing the
pc's attention to what must be audited to make clear and OT and the Tone
Arm.
These tapes contain all the vital basic information.
If you are having any difficulties with income, results, staff co-audit
or public dissemination, the broad technical data contained in the Itsa
Line, ARC Break Assessments and Tone Arm Action will rapidly resolve them.
This begins a new era for Scientology.
Get the data known to staff by holding these tape plays for me, at
least two of these tapes a week, with all staff attending.
Stressing any other data or reviewing any other material, playing any other
tapes broadly to staff or students at this time will retard your forward
progress by overloading the line.
So I'm counting on you as HCO Area Sec to take care of this for me and
keep staff attention squarely on:
1. The Itsa Line
2. The Tone Arm
3. Proper use of ARC Break Assessments
4. Directing pc's attention adroitly.
This does not affect what we already know and does not outmode such
things as metering, Auditor's Code, etc.
If you take care of this one for me on the technical end, you'll get a
lot of gains and prosperity.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[HCO PL 21 August 1963, Change of Organization Targets-Project 80, referred
to above is in OEC Vol. 2, page 95. ]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
22-29 August 1963
** 6308C22 SHSBC-298 Project 80
** 6308C27 SHSBC-299 Rightness and Wrongness
** 6308C28 SHSBC-300 The TA and the Service Facsimile
** 6308C29 SHSBC-301 The Service Facsimile (cont.)
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY THREE
CLEARING-CLEARING-CLEARING
ROUTINE THREE SC
There has been such a rush on in technical that it may have looked to
you that we were in a state of rapid change. This was occasioned by a speed-
up caused by various events. You are getting about a century of research
(or more) in a very few months. So bear with me. The end is not only in
sight. It's here. My job is mainly now to refine and get the data to you.
The order brought into our work by making FIVE LEVELS OF SCIENTOLOGY is
paying off rapidly. Level One is in development. Level Two is well away.
Level Four is complete. And suddenly Level Three leaped to a final phase.
We can CLEAR, CLEAR, CLEAR.
This has been a stepchild for months, even years now. It has been
mauled, messed up, invalidated and rehabilitated and knocked around. But a
BOOK ONE CLEAR was what most people came into Scientology to obtain. And
now I've done it. I've found out why not and how.
And this HCO Bulletin is a hurry-skurry outline of the steps so you can
do it. There will be lots of HCO Bulletins on this. The tapes of August 27,
28 and 29, AD13, give most of its theory.
CLEAR DEFINED-Book One definition holds exactly true. A Clear is
somebody with no "held down fives" in this lifetime (see Evolution of a
Science).
CLEAR TEST-Clear sits at Clear read on the TA with a free needle. No
natter. No upsets. No whole track keyed in. No SERVICE FACSIMILE.
CLEAR STABILITY-We are not concerned with stability. But we can now key
out so thoroughly that we need not stress "keyed out clear". I have found
the means, I am sure, to make this state far more stable and recreate it
easily if it slips.
So forgive me for being indecisive about clear states for these past
many months.
The breakthrough is stated as follows: IF YOU CANNOT MAKE A CLEAR IN A
25-HOUR PREPCHECK THE PC HAS ONE OR MORE SERVICE FACSIMILES.
The barrier to clearing and the reason for fast relapse when clear was
attained has been the SERVICE FACSIMILE.
SERVICE FACSIMILE defined: Advanced Procedure and Axioms definition
accurate. Added to this is: THE SERVICE FACSIMILE IS THAT COMPUTATION
GENERATED BY THE PRECLEAR (NOT THE BANK) TO MAKE SELF RIGHT AND OTHERS
WRONG, TO DOMINATE OR ESCAPE DOMINATION AND ENHANCE OWN SURVIVAL AND INJURE
THAT OF OTHERS.
Note that it is generated by the pc, not the bank. Thus the pc restimulates
the bank with the computation; the bank, unlike going to OT, does not
retard the pc in this instance.
The Service Facsimile is usually a this lifetime effort only. It might
better be called a SERVICE COMPUTATION but we'll hold to our old terms. The
pc is doing it. In usual aberration the bank is doing it (the pc's engrams,
etc). Where you can't clear the pc by auditing just bank, you have to get
out of the road what the pc is doing to stay aberrated. If you clear only
what the bank is doing the clear state rapidly relapses. If you clear what
the pc is doing the bank tends to stay more quiet and unrestimulated. It is
the pc who mostly keys his bank back in. Therefore the pc who won't go free
needle clear is himself unconsciously preventing it. And by knocking out
this effort we can then key out the bank and we have a fast clear who
pretty well stays clear (until sent on to OT).
The state is desirable to attain as it speeds going to OT.
All this came from studies I've been doing of the Tone Arm. The Tone
Arm must move during auditing or the pc gets worse. All those pcs whose
Tone Arms don't easily get into action and hang up are SERVICE FACSIMILE
pcs.
Note that the SERVICE FACSIMILE is used to:
FIRST: Make self right.
Make others wrong.
SECOND: To Avoid Domination.
To Dominate Others.
THIRD: To Increase own survival.
To hinder the survival of others.
The Service Facsimile is all of it logical gobbledegook. It doesn't
make good sense. That's because the pc adopted it where, in extreme cases,
he or she felt endangered by something but could not Itsa it. Hence it's
illogical. Because it is senseless, really, the computation escapes casual
inspection and makes for aberrated behaviour.
TO MAKE A CLEAR
The steps, in brief, are:
1. ESTABLISH SERVICE FAC. This is done by Assessment of
Scientology List One of 2-12 and using that for a starter and then using
the Preliminary Step of R3R as published (HCO Bulletin of July I, AD 1 3).
One uses only things found by assessment, never by wild guesses or pc's
obvious disabilities. These assessments already exist on many cases and
should be used as earlier found.
2. AUDIT WITH RIGHT-WRONG. Ask pc with Itsa Line carefully in,
FIRST QUESTION: "In this lifetime, how would (whatever was found) make you
right?" Adjust question until pc can answer it, if pc can't. Don't force it
off on pc. If it's correct it will run well. Don't keep repeating the
question unless pc needs it. Just let pc answer and answer and answer. Let
pc come to a cognition or run out of answers or try to answer the next
question prematurely and switch questions to: SECOND QUESTION: "In this
lifetime, how would (whatever was found) make others wrong?" Treat this the
same way. Let the pc come to a cog, or run out of answers or accidentally
start to answer the first question. Go back to first question. Do the same
with it. Then to second question. Then to first question again, then to
second.
If your assessment was right pc will be getting better and better TA
action. But the TA action will eventually lessen. On any big cognition, end
the process. This may all take from 2 hours to 5, I don't think more. The
idea is not to beat the process to
death or sink pc into bank GPMs. The pc will have automaticities (answers
coming too fast to be said easily) early in the run. These must be gone and
pc bright when you end. You are only trying to end the compulsive character
of the Service Facsimile so found and get it off automatic and get pc to
see it better, not to remove all TA action from the process.
3. AUDIT SECOND PROCESS. Using the same method of auditing as in
2. above, use the THIRD QUESTION: "In this lifetime how would (same one
used in Step 2) help you escape domination?" When this seems cooled off use
FOURTH QUESTION: "In this lifetime how would (same one) help you dominate
others?" Use THIRD QUESTION and FOURTH QUESTION again and until pc has it
all cooled off or a big cognition.
4. AUDIT THIRD PROCESS. Using the same method as in 2. above use
the FIFTH QUESTION: "In this lifetime, how would (same one) aid your
survival?" and then SIXTH QUESTION: "In this lifetime how would (same one)
hinder the survival of others?" Use FIVE and SIX as long as is necessary to
cool it all off or to produce a big cognition.
5. PREPCHECK WITH BIG MID RUDS, using the question, "In this
lifetime, on (same one) has anything been . .. ?" and get in Suppress,
Careful of, Failed to Reveal, Invalidate, Suggest, Mistake been made,
Protest, Anxious about, Decided.
If the pc has a really shattering cognition just halt Prepcheck and end
it off.
This Prepcheck is done of course off the meter until the pc says no,
then checking it on the meter and cleaning it off. Once you've gone to
meter on a button stay with meter for further queries. But don't clean
cleans and don't leave slows or speeded rises either. And don't cut pc's
Itsa Line.
That should be the end of a Service Facsimile. But a pc may have
several, so do it all again through all steps as often as is needed.
Pcs who have had Scientology List One of R2- 12 should be given these
as the first things used. Pcs who have had assessments done for R3R chains
should have these assessment results used (or as much of them as apply) for
the next runs. Even if the chain assessment has been run on R3R still use
it for R3SC.
COMPLETING CLEARING
To complete clearing then, it is only necessary to give a permissive In
This Lifetime 18 button Prepcheck making the pc look hard for answers,
short of ARC Breaking pc.
And you should have a beautiful free needle and TA at the clear read
and the pc shining.
If clearing did not occur these following faults were present in the
auditing:
1. Pc did not agree with assessment, it read only because pc did
not understand it or protested it.
2. The assessment was wrong.
3. The atmosphere of auditing was critical of pc.
4. The Itsa Line was not in.
5. The auditor let the Itsa Line wander to early track.
6. The auditor Q'ed and A'ed and went off process and into engrams
on pc's "sell".
7. The process was not done.
8. The assessment was done by physical disability inspection or by
choosing pc's habits, not by actual assessment.
9. The auditing did not produce TA action (wrong assessment and/or
Itsa Line out would be all that could produce no TA action).
10. Pc already sitting in a heavy ARC Break by reason of whole
track by-passed charge.
11. This process used instead of an ARC Break Assessment well done,
thus making this process a punishment.
12. Questions phrased wrong.
13. Questions were over-run.
14. Questions were under-run.
15. Auditor too choppy on Prepchecking.
16. ARC Breaks in these sessions were not cleaned up.
17. Pc trying to plunge into early track and stay restimulated.
18. Pc trying to get early track GPMs or engrams run to avoid
giving up Service Facsimile.
19. Auditor missed withholds accumulated during clearing.
20. Process end product "clear" overestimated by auditor, pc or
supervisors.
The keynote of clearing a Service Facsimile is INTEREST. If pc isn't
interested in it, the assessment is wrong.
The keynote of auditing tone is permissive, happy, easy, not militant.
Let pc run on and on.
On phrasing question, no matter what is assessed it is always IT MAKES
PC RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG. Pc is not trying to make it wrong.
--------------
An ordinary Prepcheck, done with a Service Facsimile present, will turn
on mass on the pc. Why? Pc is asserting Service Facsimile.
--------------
Well that's the fast rundown on R3SC (Routine Three, Service Facsimile
Clear). And that's clearing. A lot of theory is missing in this HCO
Bulletin but not one essential step. You can do it.
If a person is cleared before going on to OT they make it hundreds of
hours faster !
(NOTE: All OT processes will shortly be released with R4 designations
but with little other change.)
LRH:jw.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6309C03 SHSBC-302A R3SC
** 6309C04 SHSBC-302 How to Find a Service Facsimile
** 6309C05 SHSBC-303 Service Fac Assessment
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1963
DofT, DofP
Five copies to
each Org SCIENTOLOGY FIVE
Orgs do not re
stencil INSTRUCTING IN SCIENTOLOGY AUDITING
INSTRUCTOR'S TASK
D of P's CASE HANDLING
As given at the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Instructors
Conference of this date, the task of the Scientology Auditing Course
Instructor (and D's of P handling cases through uncleared staff auditors)
is to accomplish training and processing and therefore auditing with
uncleared students or auditors.
The following drawings and explanations were made.
In Drawing A we see the auditor's perception of the pc as limited by
auditor's own Service Facsimile.
In Drawing B we see the Auditor's perception of the pc the way it would
be if the Service Fac were removed.
Thus we see judgement missing because of lack of perception of the pc
or his or her condition or case in Drawing A, thus permitting only
processes not requiring high level perception or decisions based upon the
momentary condition of the pc.
In Drawing B we see that perception is not limited, judgement can be
exercised by the auditor because the pc can actually be observed by him.
Higher level processes can only be run by an auditor approximating the
observation condition shown in Drawing B.
In Drawing C we see the actual observation limitations of auditor or pc
in an aberrated condition. The keynote is SAFE ASSUMPTIONS as per Service
Fac. Thus only Safe Assumptions will be entertained and no real auditing
occurs. Only ineffective assumptions or questions are likely to be asked or
viewed. Example: "What about thinking about stealing a paper clip from
HASI?" This actual question was once asked in O/W, and its prototypes keep
real auditing from occurring since neither pc nor auditor get close to any
real aberration. (That either auditor or pc consider the assumption safe
does not mean it is not aberrated and subject to fault.) So no real
auditing of the case is undertaken and when something worth while auditing
is contacted, either auditor draws off or pc (unobserved by an aberrated
auditor) draws off. This reduces processing results to next to nothing. It
also sometimes leads both auditor and pc in over both their heads as little
is observed and all these "Safe Assumptions" are also aberrated .
The Instructor's (and Case Supervisor's) Solution is seen in Drawing D.
Auditing at lower stages, done by aberrated auditors (who have Service
Facs in place) must be assumed to be independent of observation of the PC
Occurrences (since observation of the pc as in Drawing A does not exist).
The Instructor therefore directs the Student Auditor's attention toward
the Scientology Body of Data in order to get effective auditing done. So
does any Case Supervisor. This body of data is designed to accomplish
auditing independent of Observation of the pc and the many varieties of
changes and differences amongst pcs. The Instructor uses such mechanisms as
"If you can breathe you can audit," "Do it exactly by the Bulletin." He
instructs only in broadly workable processes and along
definite rote lines. He uses the habit patterns of discipline to enforce
the auditor's attention to and compliance with workable drills and data.
If this is done (and only if this is done) will auditing occur that is
capable of producing effective results independent of the condition shown
in Drawing A.
If the condition shown in Drawing C is permitted to occur, then all
manner of squirrel processes and actions will occur in sessions, wild
solutions will reign and general chaos will result. But more importantly
the auditing necessary to produce the ideal condition shown in Drawing B
can occur only in the presence of Instruction or Supervision shown in
Drawing D.
Thus one produces cleared auditors by operating only as per Drawing D.
These facts are not the result of theoretical supposition, but of careful
empirical observation and test. Therefore, Instruction and performance of
uncleared auditors must follow Drawing D.
The accomplishment of Classes II and III auditing and Levels II and III
results is possible by following Drawing D. It fails only when Drawing D is
not understood and followed by Instructors and Auditing Supervisors.
The liability is that the student's or auditor's Service Fac may
contest Instruction as shown in Drawing D. There is no liability if the
student is already capable of Drawing B observation (which is rare in
uncleared persons). If a Service Fac is in the road of Instruction as per
Drawing D, it still has been and can be overcome far more easily than
overcoming various erroneous and varying observations of pcs, as to
confront the pc is to confront aberration directly and to confront the Body
of Data is to confront only an orderly and pleasant arrangement of truthful
facts that will still hold good when the student is cleared, whereas the
pc's aberration, unstable before processing, will be gone.
Thus we study valid workable data that is broadly true and enforce
compliance with it rather than studying or classifying Individual Cases and
their aberrations as was done exclusively in older Mental Sciences (which
failed where we have already succeeded for years).
Class IV material (OT and Whole Track) is sometimes too much for the
uncleared auditor since it is complex. It requires strict adherence to the
Body of Data as well as some observation of the pc. Thus Class IV materials
(OT and Whole Track) are best done when the conditions of Drawing B and
Drawing D both be present in the session.
This establishes levels of data and classification of its use. Some
auditors with Service Facsimiles in place will be unable to successfully
handle Class IV data. And some pcs unless cleared of the added
restimulation of this life and the environment before being put on Whole
Track will be unable to climb the hill.
Therefore all instruction and use of Scientology Auditing Skills and
Materials are most successfully done as per Drawing D and have proven
unsuccessful when auditor observation of the pc was assumed or auditor
judgement relied upon while the auditor or student was in an uncleared
state as per Drawings A and C.
This shows an Instructor in or Supervisor of Scientology Auditing his
surest route to success with students without blocking those students
already in condition to observe pcs. Those students whose Service
Facsimiles revolt at Drawing D will also most surely prevent their
observation of the pc and Instruction and Supervision Methods as per
Drawing D can overcome the barrier whereas nothing will actually surmount
the failure to observe the pc, short of clearing the auditor's Service Fac.
This last is a matter, also, of close observation of students over a period
of two years.
The object is to get auditing done under supervision and both during
and after Instruction. Only then can we ever broadly attain cleared
auditors or any of our objectives.
Instruction fails when these principles are not present or when done
without heavy stress on the Body of Data and compliance with good auditing
practice.
This is in no way critical of students or uncleared auditors. It is
simple observation. It is effective.
It is no mean development to accomplish auditing without observing the
more subtle conditions of the pc. We have done just that. Therefore, as the
student or auditor does not usually observe the pc because of his own
Service Fac, and as Level II and III can be done entirely by data, drills
and rote procedures, all but Class IV can be attained without cleared
auditors. If only cleared auditors were permitted to audit then nobody
would be able to start the clearing. This shortage of cleared auditors will
exist to nearly the end of this universe. So it is a good thing to have the
problem resolved, as it is in this HCO Bulletin.
Of course, the most valid reason for using this approach is that only
the disciplined Body of Data used exactly is capable of resolving cases and
no amount of confront of PC Occurrence would by itself resolve anything.
It's the Body of Data exactly and precisely used that resolves the
human or any other mind. And that's the main reason to make the student
concentrate upon it. So this is a safe thing to do-concentrate on the Body
of Data-no matter why.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dr.bh
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Drawings A, B, C and D discussed in the above HCO B are on the following
page.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
10-19 September 1963
** 6309C10 SHSBC-304 Destimulation of a Case
** 6309C11 SHSBC-306 Service Facs and GPMs
** 6309C12 SHSBC-305 Service Facs
** 6309C17 SHSBC-307 What You Are Auditing
** 6309C18 SHSBC-308 St. Hill Service Fac Handling
** 6309C19 SHSBC-309 Routine 4M TA [HCO B 2 Oct. 63 cancels R4M TA]
[pic]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING
(Compiled from HCO Bulletins of July 2, 3 and 4, AD12)
HOW TO GET THE RUDIMENTS IN
Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the presence of a
monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go gradiently dull in the presence
of out rudiments. If you fail to get one IN then the outness of the next
one reads faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you'll miss the
rudiment's outness and there goes your session.
To get over these difficulties, I've developed Repetitive Rudiments.
The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks the rudiments
question of the pc until the pc says there is no further answer. At this
point the auditor says, "I will check that on the meter." And asks the
question again. If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to
the answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again says, "I
will check that on the meter" and does so.
The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is clean of any
instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962, for Instant Read).
The cycle:
1. Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no
answer.
2. Consult meter for a hidden answer.
3. If meter reads use it to steer ("that" "that" each time the
meter flicks) the pc to the answer.
4. Stay with the Meter and do (2) and (3).
The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question.
One does not "bridge out" or use "two more commands". When the meter
test of the question gets no instant read, the auditor says, "The meter is
clean".
The trick here is the definition of "With Session". If the pc is With
Session the meter will read. If the pc is partially against session the
meter will read poorly, and the rudiment will not register and the rudiment
will get missed. But with the pc with session the meter will read well for
the auditor.
FAST CHECKING
A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of Steps (2) and (3) of the
cycle done over and over.
Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up only what
reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One does this as many times
as is necessary to get a clean needle. But one still says "The meter is
clean" and catches up the disagreement by getting the additional answers.
When the question is seen to be clean, the question is left.
In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, "THAT STILL READS." That's a flunk.
Say, "There's another read here. "
REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING
We will still use the term "Prepchecking" and do all Prepchecking by
repetitive command.
STEP ONE
Without now looking at the Meter, the auditor asks the question
repetitively until the preclear says that's all, there are no more answers.
STEP TWO
The auditor then says, "I will check that on the meter" and does so,
watching for the Instant Read (HCO Bulletin May 25,1962).
If it reads, the auditor says, "That reads. What was it?" (and steers
the pc's attention by calling each identical read that then occurs). "There
.....That .....That ....." until the pc spots it in his bank and gives the
datum.
STEP THREE
The auditor then ignores the meter and repeats Step One above. Then
goes to
Step Two, etc.
STEP FOUR
When there is no read on Step Two above, the auditor says, "The meter is
clean."
This is all there is to Repetitive Prepchecking as a system. Anything
added in the way of more auditor questions is destructive to the session.
Be sure not to Q and A (HCO Bulletin of May 24, 1962).
Be sure your TR4 is excellent in that you understand (really, no fake)
what the pc is saying and acknowledge it (really, so the pc gets it) and
return the pc to session. Nothing is quite as destructive to this type of
auditing as bad TR4.
END WORDS
The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an ARC broken
pc and it can operate on the last word (thought minor) only of a question.
Whereas the question (thought major) is actually null.
A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the
charge on those single words can be made known and the question turned
around to avoid the last word's charge.
Example: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"
The word "difficulties", said to the pc by itself gives an Instant
Read. Remedy: Test "Difficulties". If it reads as itself then change the
question to: "Concerning your difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?"
This will only react when the pc is unwilling to do so.
Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves occurs mainly
in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to groove in the question to a
"thought major". With good TR1 the END WORDS read only when the question is
asked.
IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists strongly that
the question is nul. Then test the end word for lone reaction and turn the
question about to make it end with another end word (question not to have
words changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test it for
Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question (thought major) then, of
course, it is not nul and should be answered.
DOUBLE CLEANING
"Cleaning" a rudiment that has already registered nul gives the pc a Missed
Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no
answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. This is quite serious. Once you see
a Rudiment is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul is to
leave the pc baffled-he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness.
LRH :jw.bp.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 SEPTEMBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY TWO
PREPCHECK BUTTONS
(Cancels HCO Tech Ltr of Oct 1, AD12)
The following order and number of Prepcheck Buttons should be used
wherever "an 18 button Prepcheck" is recommended. Do not use the old order
of buttons, not because of any danger, but these below are slightly more
effective. The old order of buttons may still be used.
The full command is usually "(Time Limiter) (on subject) has anything
been____" or "is there anything you have been_____" for some of them which
don't fit with "has anything been _____". The (on_____may be omitted. The
Time Limiter is seldom omitted as it leads the pc to Itsa the Whole Track.
On an RRing goal found and used in R3SC the Time Limiter "In this Lifetime"
can be used with good effect. All Service Fac questions or Prepchecks must
have a Time Limiter.
In running R4 (R3M2), pc's actual GPMs, the goal and RIs are
Prepchecked without a Time Limiter as pc is on the whole track anyway. But
in all lower levels of auditing, particularly when using a possible goal as
a Service Fac, the Time Limiter, usually "In this Lifetime _____", must be
used or pc will become Over Restimulated.
For all uses the 18 Prepcheck Buttons now are:
SUPPRESSED
CAREFUL OF
FAILED TO REVEAL
INVALIDATED
SUGGESTED
MISTAKE BEEN MADE
PROTESTED
ANXIOUS ABOUT
DECIDED
WITHDRAWN FROM
REACHED
IGNORED
A FAILURE
HELPED
HIDDEN
REVEALED
ASSERTED
SOLVED
BIG MID RUDS
It will be noted that the first 9 are the Big Mid Ruds used as "Since the
Last Time I audited you has anything been_____?"
A USEFUL TIP
To get the Meter clean on a list during nulling the list the easiest
system is to show the pc the list and just ask, "What happened?" This saves
a lot of Mid Ruds.
TWO USEFUL PAIRS
When trying to get an Item to read the two buttons Suppress and
Invalidate are sometimes used as a pair.
To get a pc easier in session the buttons Protested and Decided are
sometimes used as a pair.
DIRTY NEEDLE
Mid Ruds (called because Middle of Session was the earliest use +
Rudiments of a Session) are less employed today because of the discovery
that all Dirty Needle phenomena is usually traced to the auditor having cut
the pc's communication. To get rid of a Dirty Needle one usually need ask
only, "Have I cut your Communication?" or do an ARC Break assessment if
that doesn't work. A Dirty Needle (continuously agitated) always means the
auditor has cut the pc's Itsa Line, no matter what else-has happened.
Chronically comm chopping auditors always have pcs with Dirty Needles.
Conversely, pcs with high Tone Arms have auditors who don't control the
Itsa Line and let it over-restimulate the pc by getting into lists of
problems or puzzlements, but a high Tone Arm also means a heavy Service
Fac, whereas a Dirty Needle seldom requires Mid Ruds or Prepchecks. It just
requires an auditor who doesn't cut the pc's Itsa Line.
THE OLD ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS
The following buttons and order were the original buttons and may still
be used, particularly if the pc is allergic to Mid Ruds:
SUPPRESSED
INVALIDATED
BEEN CAREFUL OF
SUGGESTED
WITHHELD
PROTESTED
HIDDEN
REVEALED
MISTAKE (BEEN MADE)
ASSERTED
CHANGED (OR ALTERED)
DAMAGED
WITHDRAWN (FROM)
CREATED
DESTROYED
AGREED (WITH)
IGNORED
DECIDED
LRH:jw.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1963
Central Orgs
SCIENTOLOGY 0 TO V
TAPE COVERAGE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY
Due to certain pressures in the world at the end of 1962, I deemed it
advisable to speed up research as a means of handling developing
situations.
This activity proved fruitful beyond any expectations for the period
devoted to it.
To increase an already burdened personal time schedule was not without
repercussion. It was in the first place impossible to crowd more action
into the crowded hours but somehow I did so. I cut out all social
engagements, almost all appointments and even reduced time spent talking to
students. I canceled all lecture appearances abroad. I let my cars and
motorcycles rust and my cameras gather dust. I kept Mary Sue up all night
auditing or being audited. And somehow, through the devotion of staff,
everywhere, kept the show on the road and handled the legal front also.
The stepped up schedule period has not ended but the golden knowledge
has been gathered in and all targets hoped for have been exceeded.
This period has also been hard on staff, students and all
Scientologists due to shifting technology.
One of the ways of reducing research time is omitting written records.
Therefore I have relied on the Saint Hill Course Lecture tapes to bear the
burden of collecting the data together.
On these tapes over a certain period we have a full record of the
results of this stepped up period of research.
What one is greeted with, in listening to these tapes, is a whole new
clarification of Scientology including breaking it into progressive classes
or levels of data.
Hardly any HCO Bulletins mirror this period. It is all on tapes.
A full progressive summary of Modern Scientology from the lowest to the
highest levels is to be found on the following tapes:
24 July '63 - ARC Breaks and the Comm Cycle.
25 July '63 - Comm Cycles in Auditing.
6 August '63 - Auditing Comm Cycles.
7 August '63 - R2-H Fundamentals.
8 August '63 - R2-H Assessment.
14 August '63 - Auditing Tips.
15 August '63 - The Tone Arm.
20 August '63 - The Itsa Line.
21 August '63 - The Itsa Line (continued).
22 August '63 - Project 80.
27 August '63 - Rightness and Wrongness.
28 August '63 - The TA and the Service Facsimile.
29 August '63 - Service Facsimile (continued).
3 September '63 - R3SC.
4 September '63 - How to Find a Service Facsimile.
5 September '63 - Service Fac Assessment.
10 September '63 - Destimulation of a Case.
11 September '63 - Service Facs and GPMs.
12 September '63 - Service Facs.
17 September '63 - What You Are Auditing.
18 September '63 - St Hill Service Fac Handling.
19 September '63 - Routine 4M-TA.
24 September '63 Summary-
25 September '63 (These three lectures not yet given at time
26 September '63 of writing this HCO Bulletin.)
Additionally we have some earlier tapes that amplify the material of
the pc's Actual GPMs and the theory behind them in:
20 November '62 - The GPM.
28 March '63 - The GPM.
2 April '63 - Line Plot, Items.
4 April '63 - Anatomy of the GPM.
16 April '63 - Top of GPM.
Other tapes made up to 24 July 1963 carry the full story of Implant
GPMs, their patterns and handling and the Whole Track. These have only
passing importance as a pc's Actual Goals and GPMs are a thousand thousand
times more aberrative and important than Implants. But one has to know the
extent and nature of Implant GPMs in order not to get them confused with
Actual GPMs.
The road into Scientology, the road to Clear and the road to OT are all
delineated on the tapes listed above between 24 July '63 and 26 September
'63, a total of 25 tapes. (I anticipate 3 of these lectures for this week
in order to get out this HCO Bulletin. )
Thus in 25 1/2 hour tapes we have a summary and clarification and new
data on Modern Scientology for all levels and classes.
Auditing has been redefined, comm cycles have been inspected, Service
Facsimiles have been unearthed and clarified. Most old auditing problems
have been swept away and the road has been opened.
This has been a fantastic and dramatic period in the history and
development of Scientology and I'm proud that it came off.
And I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the floods of
congratulations that have been pouring in from everywhere as these tapes
have been released.
History has been made. Scientology is capable of fully freeing Man.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.cden
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY I to IV
ADEQUATE TONE ARM ACTION
Now that it has been established fully that a pc's gain is directly and
only proportional to Tone Arm Action, the question of how much Tone Arm
Action is adequate must be answered.
These are rough answers based on direct observation of pcs after
sessions.
Tone Arm action is measured by DIVISIONS DOWN PER 2l/2 hour session or
per hour of auditing.
TA action is not counted by up and down, only down is used. Usually the
decimal system is used. But fractions can also be employed. Needle falls
are neglected in the computation, only actual motion of the Tone Arm is
used.
One can add up or approximate the TOTAL DOWN TONE ARM MOTION. After a
session, if an auditor is keeping good reports of TA motion, one adds up
all the divisions and fractions of division of Down Motion (not up) and the
result is known as TOTAL TA FOR THE SESSION.
A needle gives about a 10th of a Division of motion in one sweep across
the dial but, as above, is not used in his computation. Needle action is
neglected in the add-up.
Example: As noted in the TA column of an auditor's report, 4.5, 4.2,
4.8, 4.0, 3.5 gives you .3 + .8 + .5 gives you 1.6 Divisions of TA action
for that period of time. When this is done for a full 2.5 hour session the
following table gives you a rough idea of what is expected and what will
happen to the pc.
Amount Per Session Session Rating PC Reaction
25 Divs Excellent Feels wonderful
20 Divs Good Feels good
15 Divs Acceptable Feels "Better"
10 Divs Poor Slight Change
5 Divs Unacceptable No Change
0 Divs Harmful Gets Worse
Anything from 10 Divs to 0 Divs of Down Tone Arm for a 21/2 hour
session is something to do something about. One gets very industrious in
this range.
For a 25 hour intensive the scale of TA divisions down for the entire
intensive would be:
Amount Per Intensive Session Rating PC Reaction
250 Divs Excellent Feels wonderful
200 Divs Good Feels good
150 Divs Acceptable Feels "Better"
100 Divs Poor Slight Change
50 Divs Unacceptable No Change
0 Divs Harmful Gets Worse
The preclear's case state can be completely predicted by the amount of TA
action received in a session or an intensive.
The only exception is where the pc in running R4 (old R3) processes can
get into a "creak" of by-passed goals or RIs which make him uncomfortable
although TA action has been good or even excellent. A case analysis will
locate the by-passed charge. On any auditing where charge has been by-
passed but TA action was good the pc's subjective reality on gain will not
seem to compare with the TA action gotten in the auditing, but the moment
the by-passed charge is located the gain attributable to TA action will be
felt.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
25-26 September 1963
** 6309C25 SHSBC-310 Summary II. Scientology 0
** 6309C26 SHSBC-311 Summary III About Level IV Aud.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 OCTOBER 1963
Franchise
CenOCon
SCIENTOLOGY ALL
HOW TO GET TONE ARM ACTION
The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to
get Tone Arm Action Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action.
Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA NOW.
Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or
accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level
IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action.
l. Get good Tone Arm Action.
2. Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action.
NEW DATA ON THE E-METER
The most elementary error in trying to get Tone Arm action is, of
course, found under the fundamentals of auditing-reading an E-Meter.
This point is so easily skipped over and seems so obvious that auditors
routinely miss it. Until they understand this one point, an auditor will
continue to get minimal TA and be content with 15 Divisions down per
session-which in my book isn't TA but a meter stuck most of the session.
There is something to know about meter reading and getting TA. Until
this is known nothing else can be known.
TONE ARM ASSESSMENT
The Tone Arm provides assessment actions. Like the needle reacts on
list items, so does the Tone Arm react on things that will give TA.
You don't usually needle assess in doing Levels I, II and III. You Tone
Arm Assess.
The Rule is: THAT WHICH MOVES THE TONE ARM DOWN WILL GIVE TONE ARM
ACTION.
Conversely, another rule: THAT WHICH MOVES ONLY THE NEEDLE SELDOM GIVES
GOOD TA.
So for Levels I, II and III (and not LEVEL IV) you can actually paste a
paper over the needle dial, leaving only the bottom of the needle shaft
visible so the TA can be set by it and do all assessments needed with the
Tone Arm. If the TA moves on a subject then that subject will produce TA if
the pc is permitted to talk about it (Itsa it).
Almost all auditors, when the Itsa Line first came out, tried only to
find FUTURE TA ACTION and never took any PRESENT TA ACTION. The result was
continuous listing of problems and needle nulling in an endless search to
find something that "would produce TA action". They looked frantically all
around to find some subject that would produce TA action and never looked
at the Tone Arm of their meter or tried to find what was moving it NOW.
This seems almost a foolish thing to stress-that what is producing TA
will produce TA. But it is the first lesson to learn. And it takes a lot of
learning.
Auditors also went frantic trying to understand what an ITSA LINE was. They
thought it was a Comm Line. Or part of the CCHs or almost anything but what
it is. It is too simple.
There are two things of great importance in an auditing cycle. One is
the Whatsit, the other is the Itsa. Confuse them and you get no TA.
If the auditor puts in the Itsa and the preclear the Whatsit, the
result is no TA. The auditor puts in the Whatsit and the pc the Itsa,
always. It is so easy to reverse the role in auditing that most auditors do
it at first. The preclear is very willing to talk about his difficulties,
problems and confusions. The auditor is so willing to Itsa (discover) what
is troubling the preclear that an auditor, green in this, will then work,
work, work to try to Itsa something "that will give the pc TA", that he
causes the pc to "Whatsit Whatsit Whatsit that's wrong with me". Listing is
not really good Itsa-ing; it's Whatsit-ing as the pc is in the mood "Is it
this? Is it that?" even when "solutions" are being listed for assessment.
The result is poor TA.
TA comes from the pc saying, "It IS" not "Is it?"
Examples of Whatsit and Itsa: Auditor: "What's here?" (Whatsit) Pc: "An
auditor, a preclear, a meter." (Itsa)
Itsa really isn't even a Comm Line. It's what travels on a Comm Line
from the pc to the auditor, if that which travels is saying with certainty
"It IS".
I can sit down with a pc and meter, put in about three minutes
"assessing" by Tone Arm Action and using only R1C get 35 Divisions of TA in
2% hours with no more work than writing down TA reads and my auditor's
report. Why? Because the pc is not being stopped from Itsa-ing and because
I don't lead the pc into Whatsit-ing. And also because I don't think
auditing is complicated.
Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented if it didn't occur. Example:
An auditor, noting a Whatsit moved the TA, every time, promptly changed the
Whatsit to a different Whatsit. Actually happened. Yet in being asked what
he was doing in session said: "I ask the pc for a problem he has had and
every time he comes up with one I ask for solutions to it." He didn't add
that he frantically changed the Whatsit each time the TA started to move.
Result-9 Divisions of TA in 21/2 hours, pc laden with by-passed charge. If
he had only done what he said he had he would have had TA.
If it didn't occur, Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented! It
doesn't just "not occur".
In confirmation of auditors being too anxious to get in the Itsa Line
themselves and not let the pc is the fad of using the meter as a Ouija
Board. The auditor asks it questions continually and never asks the pc. Up
the spout go Divisions of TA. "Is this Item a terminal?" the auditor asks
the meter. Why not ask the pc? If you ask the pc, you get an Itsa, "No, I
think it's an oppterm because ....." and the TA moves.
Now to give you some idea of how crazy simple it is to get in an Itsa
Line on the pc, try this:
Start the session and just sit back and look at the pc. Don't say
anything. Just sit there looking at the pc. The pc will of course start
talking. And if you just nod now and then and keep your auditor's report
going unobtrusively so as not to cut the Itsa, you'll have a talking pc and
most of the time good TA. At the end of 21/2 hours, end the session. Add up
the TA you've gotten and you will usually find that it was far more than in
previous sessions.
TA action, if absent, had to be prevented! It doesn't just fail to
occur.
But this is not just a stunt. It is a vital and valuable rule in
getting TA.
RULE: A SILENT AUDITOR INVITES ITSA.
This is not all good, however. In doing R4 work or R3R or R4N the silent
auditor lets the pc Itsa all over the whole track and causes Over-
Restimulation which locks up the TA. But in lower levels of auditing,
inviting an Itsa with silence is an ordinary action.
In Scientology Levels I, II and III the auditor is usually silent much
longer, proportionally, in the session, than he or she is talking-about 100
of silence to 1 of talking. As soon as you get into Level IV auditing
however, on the pc's actual GPMs, the auditor has to be crisp and busy to
get TA and a silent, idle auditor can mess up the pc and get very little
TA. This is all under "controlling the pc's attention". Each level of
auditing controls the pc's attention a little more than the last and the
leap from Level III to IV is huge.
Level I hardly controls at all. The rule above about the silent auditor
is employed to the full.
Level II takes the pc's life and livingness goals (or session goals)
for the pc to Itsa and lets the pc roll, the auditor intruding only to keep
the pc giving solutions, attempts, dones, decisions about his life and
livingness or session goals rather than difficulties, problems and natter
about them.
Level III adds the rapid search (by TA assessment) for the service
facsimile (maybe 20 minutes out of 2l/2 hours) and then guides the preclear
into it with R3SC processes. The rule here is that if the thing found that
moved the TA wouldn't make others wrong but would make the pc wrong, then
it is an oppterm lock and one Prepchecks it. (The two top RIs of the pc's
PT GPM is the service facsimile. One is a terminal, the pc's, and the other
is an oppterm. They each have thousands of lock RIs. Any pair of lock RIs
counts as a service facsimile, giving TA.) A good slow Prepcheck but still
a Prepcheck. Whether running Right-Wrong-Dominate-Survive, (R3SC) or
Prepchecking (the only 2 processes used) one lets the pc really answer
before acking. One question may get 50 answers! Which is One Whatsit from
the auditor gets 50 Itsas from the pc.
Level IV auditing finds the auditor smoothly letting the pc Itsa RIs
and lists but the auditor going at it like a small steam engine finding
RIs, RIs, RIs, Goals, RIs, RIs, RIs. For the total TA in an R4 session only
is proportional to the number of RIs found without goofs, wrong goals or
other errors which rob TA action.
So the higher the level the more control of the pc's attention. But in
the lower levels, as you go back down, the processes used require less and
less control, less auditor action to get TA. The Level is designed to give
TA at that level of control. And if the auditor actions get busier than
called for in the lower levels the TA is cut down per session.
OVER-RESTIMULATION
As will be found in another HCO Bulletin and in the lectures of summer
and autumn of 1963, the thing that seizes a TA up is Over-Restimulation.
THE RULE IS: THE LESS ACTIVE THE TA THE MORE OVER-RESTIMULATION IS PRESENT.
(THOUGH RESTIMULATION CAN ALSO BE ABSENT.)
Therefore an auditor auditing a pc whose TA action is low (below 20 TA
Divisions down for a 2l/2 hour session) must be careful not to over-
restimulate the pc (or to gently restimulate the pc). This is true of all
levels. At Level IV this becomes: don't find that next goal, bleed the GPM
you're working of all possible charge. And at Level III this becomes: don't
find too many new Service Facs before you've bled the TA out of what you
already have. And at Level II this becomes: don't fool about with a new
illness until the pc feels the Lumbosis you started on is handled utterly.
And at Level I this becomes: "Let the pc do the talking".
Over-Restimulation is the auditor's most serious problem.
Under-Restimulation is just an auditor not putting the pc's attention
on anything.
The sources of Restimulation are:
1. Life and Livingness Environment. This is the workaday world of the
pc. The auditor handles this with Itsa or "Since Big Mid Ruds' and even by
regulating or changing some of the pc's life by just telling the pc to not
do this or that during an intensive or even making the pc change residence
for a while if that's a source. This is subdivided into Past and Present.
2. The Session and its Environment. This is handled by Itsa-ing the
subject of session environments and other ways. This is subdivided into
Past and Present.
3. The Subject Matter of Scientology. This is done by assessing (by TA
motion) the old Scientology List One and then Itsa-ing or Prepchecking
what's found.
4. The Auditor. This is handled by What would you be willing to tell me,
Who would you be willing to talk to. And other such things for the pc to
Itsa. This is subdivided into Past and Present.
5. This Lifetime. This is handled by slow assessments and lots of Itsa
on what's found whenever it is found to be moving the TA during slow
assessment. (You don't null a list or claw through ten hours of listing and
nulling to find something to Itsa at Levels I to III. You see what moves
the TA and bleed it of Itsa right now. )
6. Pc's Case. In Levels I to III this is only indirectly attacked as
above.
And in addition to the actions above, you can handle each one of these
or what's found with a slow Prepcheck.
LIST FOR ASSESSMENT
Assess for TA motion the following list:
The surroundings in which you live.
The surroundings you used to live in.
Our surroundings here.
Past surroundings for auditing or treatment.
Things connected with Scientology (Scientology List One).
Myself as your auditor.
Past auditors or practitioners.
Your personal history in this lifetime.
Goals you have set for yourself.
Your case.
At Level II one gets the pc to simply set Life and Livingness goals and
goals for the session, or takes up these on old report forms and gets the
decisions, actions, considerations, etc., on them as the Itsa, cleaning
each one fairly well of TA. One usually takes the goal the pc seems most
interested in (or has gone into apathy about) as it will be found to
produce the most TA.
Whatever you assess by Tone Arm, once you have it, get the TA out of it
before you drop it. And don't cut the Itsa.
MEASURE OF AUDITORS
The skill of an auditor is directly measured by the amount of TA he or
she can get. Pcs are not more difficult one than another. Any pc can be
made to produce TA. But some auditors cut TA more than others.
Also, in passing, an auditor can't falsify TA. It's written all over
the pc after a session. Lots of TA = Bright pc. Small TA = Dull pc.
And Body Motion doesn't count. Extreme Body Motion on some pcs can
produce a division of TA! Some pcs try to squirm their way to clear! A good
way to cure a TA conscious body-moving pc is to say, "I can't record TA
caused while you're moving."
As you may suspect, the pc's case doesn't do a great deal until run on
R4 processes. But destimulation of the case can produce some astonishing
changes in beingness. Key-out is the principal function of Levels I to III.
But charge off a case is charge off. Unless destimulated a case can't get a
rocket read or present the auditor with a valid goal. Levels I to III
produce a Book One clear. Level R4 produces an O.T. But case conditioning
(clearing) is necessary before R4 can be run. And an auditor who can't
handle Levels I to III surely won't be able to handle the one-man band
processes at Level IV. So get good on Levels I to III before you even study
IV.
THE FIRST THING TO LEARN
By slow assessment is meant letting the pc Itsa while assessing. This
consists of rapid auditor action, very crisp, to get something that moves
the TA and then immediate shift into letting the pc Itsa during which be
quiet! The slowness is overall action. It takes hours and hours to do an
old preclear assessment form this way but the TA flies.
The actual auditing in Level III looks like this-auditor going like mad
over a list or form with an eye cocked on the TA. The first movement of the
TA (not caused by body motion) the auditor goes a tiny bit further if that
and then sits back and just looks at the pc. The pc comes out of it, sees
the auditor waiting and starts talking. The auditor unobtrusively records
the TA, sometimes nods. TA action dies down in a couple minutes or an hour.
As soon as the TA looks like it hasn't got much more action in it the
auditor sits up, lets the pc finish what he or she was saying and then gets
busy busy again. But no action taken by the auditor cuts into the TA
action. In Levels I to III no assessment list is continued beyond seeing a
TA move until that TA motion is handled.
In doing a Scientology List One assessment one goes down the list until
the TA moves (not because of body motion). Then, because a TA is not very
pinpointed, the auditor covers the one or two above where he first saw TA
and, watching the pc for interest and the TA, circles around that area
until he is sure he has what made the TA move and then bleeds that for TA.
by Itsa or Prepcheck.
Yes, you say, but doesn't the auditor do TRs on the pc? One question-
one answer ratio? NO!
Let the pc finish what the pc was saying. And let the pc be satisfied
the pc has said it without a lot of chatter about it.
TA NOT MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR TO ACT.
TA MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR NOT TO ACT.
Only the auditor can kill the TA motion. So when the TA starts to move,
stop acting and start listening. When the TA stops moving or seems about
to, stop listening and start acting again.
Only act when the TA is relatively motionless. And then act just enough
to start it again.
Now if you can learn just this, as given here, to act when there's no TA
and not act when there is TA, you can make your own start on getting good
TA on your preclear.
With this you buy leisure to look over what's happening. With half a
hundred rules and your own confusion to worry about also, you'll never get
a beginning. So, to begin to get TA on your pc, first learn the trick of
silent invitation. Just start the session and sit there expectantly. You'll
get some TA.
When you've mastered this (and what a fight it is not to act, act, act
and talk ten times as hard as the pc) then move to the next step.
Cover the primary sources of over-restimulation listed above by asking
for solutions to them.
Learn to spot TA action when it occurs and note what the pc was saying
just then. Co-ordinate these two facts-pc talking about something and TA
moving. That's Assessment Levels I to III. Just that. You see the TA move
and relate it to what the pc is saying just that moment. Now you know that
if the pc talks about "Bugs" he gets TA action. Note that down on your
report. BUT don't otherwise call it to pc's attention as pc is already
getting TA on another subject. This pc also gets TA on Bugs. Store up 5 or
ten of these odd bits, without doing anything to the pc but letting him
talk about things.
Now a few sessions later, the pc will have told all concerning the
prime source of over-restimulation I hope you were covering with him or her
by only getting the pc started when he or she ran down. But you will now
have a list of several other things that get TA. THE HOTTEST TA PRODUCER ON
THIS LIST WILL GET A PC'S GOAL AS IT IS HIS SERVICE FAC. You can now get TA
on this pc at will. All you have to do is get an Itsa going on one of these
things.
ANY TA is the sole target of Levels I to III. It doesn't matter a
continental what generates it. Only Level IV (R4 processes) are vital on
what you get TA on (for if you're not accurate you will get no TA at Level
IV).
From Levels I to III the pc's happiness or recovery depends only on
that waving TA Arm. How much does it wave? That's how much the case
advances. Only at Level IV do you care what it waves on.
You're as good an auditor in Levels I to III as you can get TA on the
pc and that's all. And in Level IV you'll get only as much TA as you're
dead on with the right goals and RIs in the right places and those you
don't want lying there inert and undisturbed.
Your enemy is Over-Restimulation of the pc. As soon as the pc goes into
more charge than he or she can Itsa easily the TA slows down! And as soon
as the pc drowns in the over-restimulation the TA stops clank! Now your
problem is correcting the case. And that's harder than just getting TA in
the first place.
Yes, you say, but how do you start "getting in an Itsa Line?" "What is
an Itsa?"
All right-small child comes in room. You say, "What's troubling you?"
The child says, "I'm worried about Mummy and I can't get Daddy to talk to
me and ...." NO TA.
This child is not saying anything is it. This child is saying,
"Confusion, chaos, worry." No TA. The child is speaking in Oppterms.
Small child comes in room. You say, "What's in this room?" Child says,
"You and couch and rug ...." That's Itsa. That's TA.
Only in R4 where you're dead on the pc's GPMs and the pc is allowed to
say it is or isn't can you get TA good action out of listing and nulling.
And even then a failure to let the pc say it is it can cut the TA down
enormously.
Auditor says, "You've been getting TA movement whenever you mention houses.
In this lifetime what solutions have you had about houses?" And there's
the next two sessions all laid out with plenty of TA and nothing to do but
record it and nod now and then.
THE THEORY OF TONE ARM ACTION
TA motion is caused by the energy contained in confusions blowing off
the case. The confusion is held in place by aberrated stable data.
The aberrated (non-factual) stable datum is there to hold back a
confusion but in actual fact the confusion gathered there only because of
an aberrated consideration or postulate in the first place. So when you get
the pc to as-is these aberrated stable data, the confusion blows off and
you get TA.
So long as the aberrated stable datum is in place the confusion (and
its energy) won't flow.
Ask for confusions (worries, problems, difficulties) and you just over-
restimulate the pc because his attention is on the mass of energy, not the
aberrated stable datum holding it in place.
Ask for the aberrated stable datum (considerations, postulates, even
attempts or actions or any button) and the pc as-ises it, the confusion
starts flowing off as energy (not as confusion), and you get TA.
Just restimulate old confusions without touching the actual stable data
holding them back and the pc gets the mass but no release of it and so no
TA.
The pc has to say, "It's a " (some consideration or postulate) to
release the pent-up energy held back by it.
Thus an auditor's worst fault that prevents TA is permitting the
dwelling on confusions without getting the pc to give up with certainty the
considerations and postulates that hold the confusions in place.
And that's "Itsa". It's letting the pc say what's there that was put
there to hold back a confusion or problem.
If the pc is unwilling to talk to the auditor, that's What to Itsa-
"decisions you've made about auditors" for one example. If the pc can't
seem to be audited in that environment, get old environments Itsa'ed. If
the pc has lots of PTPs at session start, get the pc's solutions to similar
problems in the past.
Or just Prepcheck, slow, the zone of upset or interest of the pc.
And you'll get TA. Lots of it.
Unless you stop it.
There's no reason at all why a truly expert auditor can't get plenty of
TA Divisions Down per 2 1/2 hour session running any old thing that crops
up on a pc.
But a truly expert auditor isn't trying to Itsa the pc. He's trying to
get the pc to Itsa. And that's the difference.
Honest, it's simpler than you think.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :gw.cden
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 OCTOBER 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
URGENT
GPMs
EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS WITHDRAWN
The Tape of September 24, 1963, R4MTA, has been withdrawn.
The process R4MTA has been canceled. Cases having a hard time do not
get Blowdowns high in the bank. Rather they get a "disintegrating RR" on
the Item. Listing by Blowdown can get the pc into other GPMs and skips RIs.
R3M2 is reinstated in full and exactly as R4M2.
List an Item list to the 1st RR, test the Item you're listing from. If
the RI you're listing from doesn't read, give the pc the new Item. If not,
list to next RR.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH:gl.bh
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
15 October-7 November 1963
** 6310C15 SHSBC-312 Essentials of Auditing
** 6310C16 SHSBC-313 The Itsa Maker Line
** 6310C17 SHSBC-314 Levels of Auditing
** 6310C21 SHSBC-315 Attack and GPMs
** 6310C22 SHSBC-316 The Integration of Auditing
** 6310C23 SHSBC-317 Auditing the GPM
** 6310C29 SHSBC-318 Routine 4
** 6310C30 SHSBC-319 R4 Case Assembly
** 6310C31 SHSBC-320 R4M2 Programming
** 6311C05 SHSBC-321 Three Zones of Auditing
** 6311C07 SHSBC-322 Relationship of Training to O.T.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 OCTOBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY I TO III
HOW TO GET TA
ANALYSING AUDITING
There are several distinct forms or styles of auditing. There was first
the old finger snapping handling of engrams. Then there is Formal Auditing
for which we still have TRs 0 to 4. Then there is Tone 40 Auditing, still
used today in the CCHs. These are distinctively different styles and a good
auditor can do one or another of them without mixing them up. Just as Tone
40 Auditing is still used, so is Formal Auditing-in fact Scientology 4 on
the GPMs must be run ONLY with Formal Auditing and the old TRs and other
training are still used to develop it in the student.
Now there has emerged a new Auditing style. It is Listen Style
Auditing. And the first thing to learn about it is that it is a new style
of Auditing and that it is distinctly different from Formal Auditing and
Tone 40 Auditing. Naturally an auditor who can do this new style can also
do other styles better, but the other styles are themselves and this new
style is itself. Listen Style Auditing is peculiarly fitted to undercut
formerly difficult cases at the lower levels of Scientology and to get the
necessary TA action.
Listen Style Auditing has or is developing its own TRs. It has its own
technology and this leaves the technology of other Auditing Styles still
valid and untouched.
Some of the data of Listen Style Auditing is:
1. The definition of Auditor is one who listens.
2. The pc is always right.
3. The task of the Auditor is to get the pc to comm/and to Itsa.
4. The success of the session is measured solely by Tone Arm
Action.
5. The style applies to Scientology Levels I to III.
6. As the level in which it is used is increased, the amount of
Auditor direction of the pc's attention is increased. The gap
becomes very wide in control between Level III and IV, so much so
that only Formal Auditing is used for GPMs as this material is all
sub-Itsa for the pc.
The basic crimes of Listen Style Auditing are:
1. Not getting Tone Arm Action on the pc;
2. Cutting the pc's comm;
3. Cutting, evaluating or invalidating the pc's Itsa;
4. Failing to invite Itsa by the pc;
5. Itsa-ing for the pc;
6. Not getting Tone Arm Action on the pc.
These are some of the major musts and crimes of Listen Style Auditing.
While some of these also apply to Formal Auditing, to show you how
different the new style is, if you tried to use only Listen Style Auditing
on Scientology IV and failed to use Formal Auditing at that high level, the
pc would soon be in a great big mess! So the style has its uses and
exactions and it has its limitations.
Now, realizing it is a new style, not a whole change of Scientology,
the older Auditor should study it as such and the new student-as mainly
Listen Style will be taught in Academies-should spend some earnest time in
learning to do it as itself. I have had to learn every new Auditing Style
and sometimes have taken weeks to do it. I can still do them all, each as
itself. It took me two weeks of hard daily grind to learn Tone 40 Auditing
until I could do it with no misses. It's like learning different dances.
And when you can polka and also waltz, if you're good you don't break from
a waltz into a polka without noticing the difference-or looking silly. So
the second thing to learn well about Listen Style Auditing is that it has
to be
learned and practised as itself.
Listen Style Auditing is peculiarly fitted by its simplicity to
analysis by an instructor or student or old-timer. The steps are:
1. Learn HCO Bulletin of October 1 , 1963.
2. Muck along with what you learned a bit.
3. Tape a 1 hour session you give on a tape recorder.
4. Analyse the tape.
You'll be amazed at the amount of miss until you actually hear it back.
These are the points to look for:
1. Did the Auditor get a dirty needle (continual agitation, not a smooth
flow up or down)? If so the Auditor cut the pc's comm. This is entirely
different from cutting Itsa. Just how was the pc's comm cut? Listen to
the tape. Whether the auditor got a DN or not, do this step. How many
ways was the pc prevented from talking to the Auditor? Particularly how
did the Auditor's actions cut the comm with Auditing or unnecessary
action? How was the pc discouraged from talking? What was said that
stopped the pc from talking?
2. Establish whether or not the auditor got good TA action by adding up
the session's total down TA. See HCO Bulletin of September 25, 1963. If
the Auditor did not get good TA action he or she either
(a) Cut pc's Itsa or
(b) Restimulated nothing for the pc to Itsa.
Which was it? The odds are heavily on (a). Listen to the tape and find
out how the auditor reduced the pc's Itsa. Note that Itsa is entirely
different than comm. Was the pc given anything to Itsa? Was the pc
permitted to Itsa it? How much did the Auditor Itsa for the pc? Did the
Auditor attempt to change the Itsas?
3. By various ways (by direct invitation, sounding doubtful,
unconfident, challenging) an auditor can make a pc Whatsit. The amount
a pc is made or allowed to Whatsit reduces TA action. How many ways did
the Auditor make the pc Whatsit (give problems, confusions as answers
or just plain put the pc into a questioning attitude)? How doubtful or
worried did the Auditor sound? How much did the Auditor make the pc
worry over TA action or other things (all of which add up to making the
pc Whatsit, thus reducing Tone Arm Action)?
4. How much did the Auditor invite unwanted communication about
confusions, problems by silence? How much did the Auditor prevent
wanted communication by various actions?
5. What errors in the session are obvious to the Auditor? What errors
are not real to the Auditor?
6. Does the Auditor have another rationale or explanation for not
getting TA action or for what causes TA action? Does the Auditor
consider there is another explanation for getting dirty needles?
7. Does the Auditor consider TA action unnecessary for session gains?
8. Does the pc in the taped session agree with the faults discovered?
(May be omitted.)
Such a tape should be made periodically on an Auditor until that
Auditor can get 35 Divisions of TA at any level from I to III on any pc.
LRH: dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
R3SC SLOW ASSESSMENT
Ian Tampion of the Melbourne Org, just completing the SHSBC, reports on
Itsa and Slow Assessment.
Dear Ron,
Over the past couple of weeks I have had some good wins auditing pcs on
R3SC Slow Assessment so I thought I'd write out what I've learned about it
from your lectures, bulletins, Mary Sue's talks and D of P instructions and
from my experience in Auditing. My only doubt about what I've done is that
I may have been combining R1C (Itsa Line) with R3SC but anyway it worked so
if I've got my data straight you may like to pass it on to other auditors.
Here it is:
Aim: To keep the pc talking (Itsa-ing) about his present time environment,
getting as much TA action as possible, for as long as possible without
finding and running a "glum area" that makes the TA rise.
To do this an Auditor should be aware of, and able to use the following
definitions:
Pc "Itsa-ing": Pc saying what is, what is there, who is there, where it is,
what it looks like, ideas about, decisions about, solutions to, things in
his environment. The pc talking continuously about problems or puzzlements
or wondering about things in his environment is not "Itsaing".
Present Time Environment: The whole area covering the pc's life and
livingness over a definite period. It may be the last day, the last week,
the last year, depending on the pc.
A Glum Area: That area which when the pc is supposedly "Itsa-ing" about it,
makes him glum and the TA rise, indicating that a Service Facsimile is
doing the confronting on that area and not the pc.
The following diagram and the explanation below illustrate just what is
taking place in a Slow Assessment and how the definitions given above
apply.
[pic]
While the pc is talking about football he can say Itsa game, Itsa played by
two teams, Itsa played on a field, etc, etc, etc. The same applies to the
areas TV, Work, Wife, Club, Garden, House and Mountains. All this will give
nice TA action and good gains for the pc.
Now, when he starts talking about cars he will say, "I often have
punctures," "I wonder why my car will only do 100 mph," etc, etc. While
he's talking like this there will be no TA action or a rising TA and if the
auditor lets the pc continue, he will get steadily worse. So, the auditor
must put in an Itsa line-e.g. "What have you done about this?" and the TA
will start moving again and the pc will get brighter as now he is "Itsa-
ing", before he wasn't.
Later, or earlier, the pc will start talking about Taxes, his problems,
worries, puzzlements, wonders about Taxes-the TA will rise and the pc will
become glum. Then, even though the auditor puts in an Itsa line as with the
subject of cars, the TA continues to rise and the pc remains glum. This is
because the pc can't Itsa this area-he's "got it all made"-"IGNORE THEM"
and this does all his confronting for him. In other words, the Service Fac
is a substitute confront and so the TA rises (Note the old rule about
rising needle equals no confront! ). This is a glum area so the auditor
lists "In this lifetime what would be a safe solution regarding Taxes?",
completes the list, nulls it, gets the Service Fac "Ignore them", runs it
on R3SC and soon the pc will be able to Itsa on the subject of Taxes. This
area could be found in the first 5 minutes in which case it may be possible
to just note it down and get the pc on to areas he can confront and come
back to this one later.
The assessment should go on for hours and hours and hours with
excellent TA action and the pc gaining in his ability to Itsa all the time.
However it won't go that way if the auditor doesn't get the pc to really
Itsa what is in his environment, e.g. the auditor shouldn't be content to
have the pc say he lives "out in the suburbs", he wants the address, its
distance from the city, the type of house, how many rooms, what the street
looks like, the names of the houses, occupants, who the neighbours are,
etc, etc, etc. Itsa! Itsa! Itsa! Also, it won't go that way if the auditor
tries to list safe solutions every time the pc starts talking about his
problems in an area as in the example given above with the car. Problems
are not Itsa.
Itsa! Itsa! Itsa! Equals TA action! TA action! TA action! Equals Pc
better! Pc better! Pc better! Good gains! !
I hope you find this all okay and pass it on Ron as it's sure a doll of
an auditing activity.
Very best,
Ian Tampion
P.S. I found out how most of this goes in auditing by making mistakes first
so I learnt the hard way.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH: dw.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 NOVEMBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 3
R-3 MODEL SESSION REVISED
(Amended from HCO B of May 21, AD13)
Here is the new Routine 3 Model Session as outlined in HCO Bulletin May
13, AD13. All other Model Sessions are canceled herewith. This form is to
be used in all auditing in the future.
SESSION PRELIMINARIES
All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this
order.
1. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair.
2. Clear the Auditing room with "Is it all right to audit in this room?"
(not metered).
3. Can squeeze "Squeeze the cans, please." And note that pc registers,
by the squeeze, on the meter, and note the level of the pc's
havingness. (Don't run hav here.)
4. Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the
session.
START OF SESSION:
5. "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?"
"START OF SESSION." (Tone 40)
"Has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No," say again,
"START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?" If pc says,
"No," say, "We will cover it in a moment."
RUDIMENTS:
6. "What goals would you like to set for this session?"
Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they
tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his
attention out of the session.
7. At this point in the session there are actions which could be
undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments
using "Since the last time I audited you", or pull missed W/Hs as
indicated. But if pc cheerful and needle smooth, just get down to work.
One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the
beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc,
the latter being simply another indication of the pc's being upset or
ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the
session hasn't started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc
had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session.
RUNNING O/W:
"If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general
process. The process is: 'What have you done?', 'What have you
withheld?' " (The process is run very permissively until the needle
looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.)
"Where are you now on the time track?"
"If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you
are close to present time and then end this process." (After each
command, ask, "When?") "That was the last command. Is there anything
you would care to ask or say before I end this process?"
"End of process."
RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS:
One would use the Middle Rudiments with, "Since the last time I audited
you", if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position
than it was at the end of the last session.
ORDER OF BUTTONS
Here is the correct wording and order of use for the big Mid Ruds.
" has anything been suppressed?"
" is there anything you have been careful of?"
" is there anything you have failed to reveal?"
" has anything been invalidated?"
" has anything been suggested?"
" has any mistake been made?"
" is there anything you have been anxious about?"
" has anything been protested?"
" has anything been decided?"
" has anything been asserted?"
In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to
Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the
meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on
the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast
Rud checking until it is clean.
The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds.
PULLING MISSED WITHHOLDS:
Use: "Since the last time you were audited has a withhold been
missed on you?"
"Since the last time you were audited is there anything someone
failed to find out about you?"
"Since the last time you were audited has someone nearly found out
something about you?"
BODY OF SESSION:
8. Now go into the body of the session.
END BODY OF SESSION:
9. "Is it all right with you if we end the body of the session now?" "Is
there anything you would care to ask or say before I do so?" "End of
the body of the session."
SMOOTH OUT SESSION:
10. Smooth out any roughness in the session if there has been any,
favouring Suppress, Failed to Reveal, Protest, Decide, Overts, Assert,
using prefix "In this session .........?"
GOALS & GAINS:
11. "Have you made any of these goals for this session?" "Thank you for
making these goals," or "Thank you for making some of these goals, I'm
sorry you didn't make all of them," or "I'm sorry you didn't make these
goals."
"Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to
mention?" "Thank you for these gains," or "I'm sorry you didn't make
any gains."
HAVINGNESS:
12. (After adjusting the meter) "Please squeeze the cans." (If the
squeeze test was not all right, the Auditor would run the pc's
Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.)
ENDING SESSION:
13. "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this
session?"
14. "Is it all right with you if I end this session now?"
15. "END OF SESSION (Tone 40). Has this session ended for you?" (If the
pc says, "No," repeat, "END OF SESSION." If the session still has not
ended, say, "You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.") "Tell
me I am no longer auditing you."
Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends
to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a
degree out of the session.
Wording for the above follows the tradition of earlier model sessions.
Adhere severely to this session form. It is nearly an irreducible
minimum and is very fast, but it is all necessary.
The Random Rudiment here is "What happened?"
Session Mid Ruds are simply "Protest, Assert and Decide".
RI rudiments are "Suppress and Invalidate".
ARC Break handling is in accordance with HCO Bulletin of March 14,
1963. Don't continue a session until you find out why the ARC Break.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 NOVEMBER 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
DIRTY NEEDLES
If your pc has a dirty needle, its cause is CUT ITSA or an L1 session
ARC Break.
NO other source such as a wrong Item or goal or earlier engrams or
service fac by-passed charge can cause a dirty needle.
If it's a dirty needle its cause lies in basic auditing not in
technique errors.
This rule is invariable. The apparent exception is the session ARC
Break that keys in by-passed technique charge.
Example: PC has a wrong goal. Session ARC Break caused by cleaning a
clean on the meter. This keys in wrong goal. Auditor does an L4 ARC Break
Assessment over a dirty needle, finds "wrong goal". PC brightens up a bit.
Auditor thinks he has found all the by-passed charge but actually continues
session with a somewhat gloomy pc whose needle occasionally gets dirty. The
session ARC Break was left in place. This makes the auditor think a wrong
goal can cause a dirty needle. The heavy charge keyed in (and that had to
be gotten fast) was the wrong goal. But the session (II. ) ARC Break caused
the dirty needle.
An auditor whose Basic Auditing is poor (who Qs and As, cuts Itsa,
invalidates or evaluates, or who misses meter reads on rudiments or
prepchecks or cleans cleans or misses withholds) can be spotted by his pc's
dirty needle. It's an invariable sign.
If the pc has a dirty needle the Basic Auditing of the auditor is bad.
That auditor ought to put one of his sessions on tape and listen to it
and analyze it as per the earlier HCO Bulletin.
Oddly enough, an auditor could run perfect technique on goals and yet
be so poor in basic auditing that the pc is always ARC Breaking. This would
be spotted by the pc's chronically dirty needle.
You may see a dirty read on a pc while listing something or assessing.
This means nothing as long as it is a dirty read. A dirty needle, of
course, jitters all the time.
By their pcs' needles you can know them.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :dr.cden
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 26 NOVEMBER 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
ALL LEVELS
STAR RATING
A NEW TRIANGLE
BASIC AUDITING, TECHNIQUE,
CASE ANALYSIS
All processing can be broken down into three separate parts for any
level of auditing.
These three parts are: (1) BASIC AUDITING (2) TECHNIQUE and (3) CASE
ANALYSIS.
BASIC AUDITING
The handling of the pc as a being, the auditing cycle, the meter,
comprise the segment of processing known as Basic Auditing.
If an auditor cannot handle this segment or any part of it well,
trouble will develop in the other two segments (technique and case
analysis). When technique and case analysis seem to fail "even when done by
the book" the fault commonly lies in Basic Auditing. One or more of the
five faults elsewhere listed will be present and these faults effectively
prevent any technique or case analysis from working.
Where Scientology "isn't working", the wrong first places to look are
technique and case analysis. The right place to look is Basic Auditing.
Until an auditor can handle a pc in session easily, handle a meter
smoothly and accurately and is flawless in his auditing cycle, he or she
should have no hope of making any technique work or of analyzing any case
for anything.
In smooth Basic Auditing lies the open sesame to all cases, for only
then do technique and case analysis function. The gun barrel is Basic
Auditing. Technique and Case Analysis form the Ammunition and sight. A poor
basic auditor using a fine technique is firing ammunition with no gun. It
doesn't go anywhere.
There is a level of Basic Auditing for every level of Scientology. At
the lowest level it is only the ability to sit and listen. It grows in
complexity from there up to the fabulous co-ordination of pc, auditing
cycle and meter so flawless that neither auditor nor pc are aware of the
presence of Basic Auditing at all, but only the actions of the technique
and the guidance of case analysis. And between those two practices of Basic
Auditing lie many gradients.
Basic Auditing is the rock on which all gains are built.
TECHNIQUE
The techniques of Scientology are many, spread out over 13 years of
development.
A technique is a process or some action that is done by auditor and pc
under the auditor's direction.
The lowest technique is the single co-audit question given by the
supervisor to let the pc Itsa. The highest is the complex listing of goals
and GPMs.
A technique is a patterned action, invariable and unchanging, composed
of certain steps or actions calculated to bring about tone arm action and
thus better or free a thetan.
There have been thousands of techniques. Less than a hundred, at a
guess, are in common recommended use for the various levels of auditing.
Techniques have their place in various levels of auditing today rather
than various differences of case.
As cases may be audited only at the level in which they are trained, by
modern ruling, and as several techniques exist at each level for choice out
of Case Analysis, it will be found quite simple to select a technique and
get results with it. Safe auditing and good sense dictate such selection
and classing of techniques, and trouble only results when someone sells
himself out of his level to a high fast flounder.
Techniques exist in tables and texts for the various levels and it will
be found that these give the best case results applied in that way.
CASE ANALYSIS
Case Analysis establishes two things (a) What is going on with the case
and (b) What should be done with it.
Case Analysis is a new subject to auditors at this time. It is commonly
confused with techniques and the gravest fault is treating Case Analysis as
only another assessment technique.
There is a level of Case Analysis for every level or class, to compare
with the Basic Auditing and Technique of that class.
My first development in this new segment of processing was Programming.
This is the consecutive techniques or actions a case should have to get
adequate Tone Arm action and achieve a new plateau of ability.
But Case Analysis itself has steps like (a) and (b) above.
There is also an invariable sequence of application in a more advanced
Case Analysis. These steps should be very, very well known by a trained
auditor since all Case Analysis fits into them:
1. Discover what the pc is "sitting in".
2. Have the pc detail what assumptions and considerations he or
she has had about it; and
3. Identify it fully and correctly.
The "it" above can be as slight as a worry, as bothersome as a Present
Time Problem or as overwhelming as a Goals Problem Mass. Whatever "it" is
the Case Analysis steps would be the same.
In the first step the survey may be very brief. It should certainly
have certainty in it for the pc. It can be very general. It can be a part
of a case or a geographical location. The pc could be clear or insane. The
sequence or the 3 steps would be the same.
The next step (2) gets the lies off, giving TA action and thus clearing
away charge for a more accurate assault in (3). This second step can be
very lengthy as in Level Two or very brief as in OT auditing techniques.
But it must exist whether short or long. Otherwise the analysis is heavily
hindered by the lies and these will read on the meter and upset the
analysis or they will cloud the pc's perception on which all Itsa depends.
So the lies must come off in any Case Analysis. Usually this is quite
permissive and gently done. But it can amount to also pulling missed
withholds. It all depends on the level on which the analysis is being done
and what is being analyzed. This step (2) becomes itself a technique at
lower levels. It is just a spatter and promise at high level auditing.
The third step can be long or short but must always be there. Here,
with the charge gone in (2), the auditor and pc can now identify the thing
much better and the pc can have a final certainty on it. Usually at lower
levels, the certainty is only that it is gone. The familiar "How do you
feel about that problem now?" "What problem?" is a lower level result of
Case Analysis. At the highest level, "On checking the meter, I find that is
a wrong Item" would be the auditor's final (3) statement.
So Case Analysis at any level has as its action establishing what the
pc is in, what it has been supposed to be and what it now is (or isn't).
Anything from a habit to a headache could be analyzed in this way. At
the lowest levels it could occupy an intensive, at the highest levels five
minutes.
ARC Break handling has been the most familiar tool of Case Analysis.
Case Analysis handles the momentary or prolonged problem, determines
the technique to be used, and is always done with Basic Auditing.
An auditor has three hats. One is his Basic Auditor's hat. This he
never takes off. The other two are his Technique hat and his Case Analysis
hat and these he switches back and forth at need.
These are the three segments. Put together well, they make successful
auditing.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :dr.rd
Copyright � 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
26 November-12 December 1963
** 6311C26 SHSBC-323 R4 Auditing
** 6311C27 SHSBC-330 TVD-25, Auditing Demo and Comments by LRH
** 6311C28 SHSBC-324 Seven Classifications
** 6312C03 SHSBC-325 Certifications and Classifications
** 6312C04 SHSBC-326 TVD-24, Basic Auditing
** 6312C05 SHSBC-327 Basic Auditing
** 6312C10 SHSBC-328 Scientology 0
** 6312C12 SHSBC-329 Summary of O.T. Processes
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 SHSBC-1 Indicators
** 6401C07 SHSBC-2 Good Indicators (Lower Levels)
** 6401C09 SHSBC-3 Bad Indicators
SAINT HILL STAFF COURSE LECTURES
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
30 December 1963-1 June 1964
6312C30 SH SC-1A Summary of R6, Part 1
6312C30 SH SC-1 B Summary of R6, Part 2
6312C31 SH SC-2&3 Objects of the Mind
6401 C01 SH SC-4 R6 Indicators
6401C16 SH SC-5A On R6, Part 1
6401C16 LECTURE To Instructors on Routine 6
(could be same tape as above)
6401C16 SH SC-5B On R6, Part 2
6401C20 SH SC-6A R6 Line Plots and Admin, Part 1
6401C20 SH SC-6B R6 Line Plots and Admin, Part 2
6401 C21 SH SC-7A R6 Case Analysis, Part 1
6401C21 SH SC-7B R6 Case Analysis, Part 2
6402C05 SH SC-8A The Pattern of the Bank (film), Part 1
6402C05 SH SC-8B The Pattern of the Bank (film), Part 2
6402C06 SH SC-9 R6 on Items and Goals
6402C11 SH SC-10 Bad Indicators
6402C13 SH SC-1 1A Goals, Part 1
6402C13 SH SC-11 B Goals, Part 2
6402C17 SH SC-12A Goals Listing and Plotting, Part 1
6402C17 SH SC-12B Goals Listing and Plotting, Part 2
6402C18 SH SC-13A Technical Rules and Bad Indicators, Part 1
6402C18 SH SC-13B Technical Rules and Bad Indicators, Part 2
6402C19 SH SC-14A GPM Series and Examination Review, Part 1
6402C19 SH SC-14B GPM Series and Examination Review, Part 2
6402C20 SH SC-15 Goals Finding and Plotting
6402C24 SH SC-16 Q & A on R6
6402C25 SH SC-17A The Goals Pattern, Part 1
6402C25 SH SC-17B The Goals Pattern, Part 2
6406C01 SH SC-18 The Line Plot-Goals Plot-Series Plot
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
4-9 February 1964
** 6402C04 SHSBC-4 Auditor Self-criticism
** 6402C06 SHSBC-5 Comm Cycle in Auditing
6402C09 SH DEMO Auditing Session
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
[This is excerpted from HCO Policy Letter of 24 January 1964, Case
Supervisor, a full copy of which can be found in OEC Volume 4, page 435.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
25 February 1964
** 6402C25 SHSBC-6 What Auditing Is and What It Isn't
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!
L RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.bh
Copyright �1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
** 6403C03 SHSBC-7 Auditing and Assessment
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MARCH 1964
Central Orgs
Franchise Sthil students CLASS II MODEL SESSION
(Amends and cancels HCO Bulletin of June 23, 1962.)
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
[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? If pc says, No, say, We
will cover it in the rudiments. )
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
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 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" or "Thank you for making some of these goals, I'm
sorry you didn't make all of them" or "I'm sorry you didn't make these
goals."
Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to
mention? "Thank you for these gains" or "I'm sorry you didn't make any
gains."
Env: In this session, was the room all right? (If question reacts or
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.")
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.
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.
LRH :jw.bh
Copyright � 1964 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
5-12 March 1964
** 6403C05 SHSBC-8 Case Analysis-Healing
** 6403C10 SHSBC-9 Summary of Lower Levels-Clearing at Level Four
6403C12 SHSBC-10A Track Analysis (film)
6403C12 SHSBC-10B Running GPMs (film)
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
17 March 1964
** 6403C17 SHSBC-11 The Road to Perfection
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
18-24 March 1964
6403C18 SH TVD TV Demo's Comments by LRH
** 6403C19 SHSBC-12 Flattening a Process
** 6403C24 SHSBC-13 International City
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
10 April 1964
** 6404C10 SHSBC-14 How to Manage a Course
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
14-16 April 1964
** 6404C14 SHSBC-15 The Classification-Gradation
Programme
** 6404C16 SHSBC-16 Auditing by Lists
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
21 April 1964
** 6404C21 SHSBC-17 Problems and Solutions
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
[This HCO B was replaced by HCO B 22 May 1965, Auditing by Lists, Volume VI-
41, which was in turn replaced by HCO B 27 July 1965, same title, Volume VI-
64. HCO B 3 July 1971, Auditing by Lists, Volume VII-316, replaced this and
22 May 1965 issues, and canceled the 27 July 1965 issue.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
28-30 April 1964
** 6404C28 SHSBC-18 Wisdom as an Auditor
** 6404C30 SHSBC-19 Effectiveness of Processing
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
Copyright � 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
19 May-2 July 1964
** 6405C19 SHSBC-20 The Preclear and Getting Auditing to Work
6406C04 SHSBC-21 R6 Auditing Skills
** 6406C09 SHSBC-22 The Cycle of Action-Its Interpretation on the
E-Meter
** 6406C16 SHSBC-23 "Communication" Overts and Responsibility
** 6406C18 SHSBC-24 Studying, Introduction; also issued as ST-1
** 6406C30 SHSBC-25 Cause Level, OT and the Public
** 6407C02 SHSBC-26 O/W Modernized and Reviewed
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1964
Sthil Course
AUDITING ASSIGNMENTS
(If this bulletin contradicts any existing practice,
this bulletin is the correct practice to follow.)
Student auditing assignments are outlined by Auditing Supervisors and
checked off by the Case Supervisor on the Auditing Check Sheet.
In general, any student on arrival progresses rapidly up from Level I
to Level IV auditing in the general auditing periods, remaining in a level
only long enough to demonstrate ability to get TA at that level and perform
it beneficially on the pc and get a check out.
Difficult pcs are given special examination and reorientation on O/Ws
and the workability of "treatment" or "processing".
The student then passes into the comm cycle processes of the Level VI
check sheet and all further auditing prior to Classification examination
(before entering Level VI Co-Audit) is devoted to the skills and drills
required of a Level VI Auditor.
After Classification examination, upon passing, the student enters into
the Level VI Co-Audit.
The first action in the Level VI Co-Audit is to find parts of existence
the pc may be hung up in and somewhat release the pc from them by this
lifetime considerations of the part of existence found. It does not matter
if these parts found are in the GPMs or not. The action here is
destimulative in intent not restimulative.
The student is then entered upon Actual GPMs and auditing progresses on
these exactly as directed and in no other way until the completion of the
case.
SUMMARY
It is no part of instruction to hang the student auditor up at Levels I
to IV or to unnecessarily prolong stays in "Level Units". The entire matter
is one of demonstrated skill not time spent.
Students on course, by the general one-upmanship, may knock about lower
level students with high-powered material for which the lower student is
not ready. This sometimes causes restim at lower levels. This restim is not
to be handled in any other way than getting BMRs in upon the week or by
considerations during a certain specified time such as "This week, what
considerations have you had about____" whatever the restim was.
Students trying to do Track Analysis during sessions in lower units
than the Level VI Co-Audit or generally prepchecking any of the materials
of Level VI should be given heavy technical infractions.
Lower level materials, Itsa, repetitive processes, and particularly
General O/W are quite adequate to handle any student case difficulty.
Dabbling with goals or Items or GPMs at these levels is expressly
forbidden. The only exception is a prepcheck at Level IV on known wrong
goals previously found on the pc, and this is done only when ordered by an
Auditing Supervisor.
It is to be particularly noted by the Case Supervisor that students
trying to "blow" do so only after the matter has not been confronted and
handled in routine supervision. Left unhandled, situations become blows.
Rapidity of course progress depends in large measure on rigid adherence
to the Auditing levels as above.
LRH: dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
CenOCon
Not MA HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JUNE 1964
HCO Secs: Check
out on all staff
SCIENTOLOGY II TO I V
STAR RATED IN ALL ACADEMIES & SAINT HILL
CENTRAL ORG AND FIELD AUDITOR TARGETS
It has been quite dicey keeping an organization or a practice running
with all this talk of OTs at Saint Hill and nobody to make OTs in orgs or
field.
I have been giving a lot of thought to this matter and have resolved
it.
However, when all the publicity is "Go OT" and nobody in orgs or field
at this writing has the data or classification to process to OT, the public
loses its target and it becomes pretty hard to sell auditing or training at
lower levels.
Part of the fault is that the public desires to "go all the way
instantly" and cannot see gradient progress. They "go for broke" always.
But part of the fault, if there is any, lies in the org or field activity
that permits this to happen and even forwards it.
There's an awful lot of technology south of Six. I could take almost
any chunk of it and be entirely successful in running an org or a field
practice. Shucks, I had no shadow of what we have now below IV when I was
running a howling success of a practice in Hollywood. I didn't even have a
name, was indeed anonymous. So I know it isn't quantity of knowledge or
even fame that makes success. It's using AND PLUGGING what you've got. You
sell what you can do. And as that's more, in Dianetics and Scientology,
than anyone else could ever do, you can't help but succeed.
It isn't using a lot of things indifferently that counts. It's using
something you know well very well indeed.
And it isn't putting people's attention on 40 dozen targets that gets
them to be trained or processed, it's getting their attention on one thing
that can become real to them soon.
So any reason beyond pure admin goofs that anybody in the field or an
org would do poorly lies in just two things:
1. Not doing one technical thing well and
2. Not keeping people's attention directed at it and nothing else.
When an auditor knows seventy processes indifferently he knows none.
When one directs people's attention at 40 dozen targets one disperses
them and they don't want training or processing as they don't know what to
have, since they can't tell what's there.
You have to be skilled on one process at least and know all about it
before you can do two. If anyone were to make a good study of 8C and do it
well, and do nothing else for any case, a high percentage of pc wins would
occur.
If one told his pcs or public that "the reason they were unable to cope
was that they were flinching from their environment" and then did only 8C
one would get a heavy flow of traffic. By pounding the same drum and doing
the same thing one is finally heard. There's an old rule "What I tell you
three times is true." If people don't hear the same thing being said at
least three times, they believe it is impermanent.
One can easily become possessed of an urge for "newness". That way one need
not finish any action cycles or go through the same motions twice. But this
is actually a deadly disease, the disease of "the latest". It is non-
duplication extremis. When one does only the latest one never gets a chance
to understand or become skilled in anything.
So we suffer, where we do, in orgs and field by a failure to master one
action and centre people's attention upon it as a desirable result.
So if we can get this one point well agreed upon and utilized we will
be able to:
1. Master a beneficial skill in Scientology and
2. Centre people's attention on one definite result.
Now, of course, I am talking from strength since Level VI is as wrapped
up as a Christmas present. All the patterns and ways to run and the
discipline of auditing it are all there. Pcs here change before your very
eyes. Man G, Man K. Girl G on Monday becomes super girl K on Friday. The
drawbacks of this Level are:
1. The ardours of training even a skilled auditor up to it
2. The vast quantity of material to be run
3. The dazzling aspect of it, often too great for belief until one
experiences it, and
4. The impatience of people to attain it before they're ready for
it.
It will take 2 or 3 years before orgs can deliver it routinely.
Meanwhile their public is all distracted by it. And in the very grasp of
success the hamburger vanishes from view for the Central Org and the field
auditor, "Beside the fountain's brink they die of thirst."
Two things must be done:
1. Close the delivery gap fast. Get auditors to Saint Hill and get
them trained. (Your best, please, not those that can be spared. For
the poor ones can't reach the bottom rung in under a year of below
VI training, so it's uneconomical not to send the whizzes.)
2. Brighten up a skill that can be locally done on purely local
training, and
3. Centre the public's interest on a target that can be locally
delivered.
This is the proposed programme, then, just 1, 2 and 3 above.
It would be an error to pound "OT the only target" into people's
skulls. Announce it with a hurrah, yes. But pound in another shorter target
they already have and can attain reality on.
Now fortunately for the org and field auditor there is a vital
preparation necessary for Level VI. It is a real, true technical
preparation.
EVEN WHEN YOU ARE DELIVERING R6 TO THE PUBLIC ROUTINELY YOU WILL BE
RUNNING PCs ON THIS FIRST FOR HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF HOURS.
You had better learn to profit by it.
The preparation is this:
Those preclears who are insufficiently Cause in their daily lives
cannot as-is the bank. You could throw them in to GPMs but nothing would
happen to the GPMs-only to the pc.
We have a true tiger by the tail. Take Man X off Times Square, pitch
him into GPMs and he wouldn't go OT, he'd go rheumatic. Why? He can't as-is
the significances and masses.
This will be found exclamatorily true of some 99 percent of the pcs.
Auditors are different. They can confront more. But nine out of twenty-
five auditors break a leg over commas in GPMs when they are pc-ing. One
sneeze and the meter locks up. One error in sequence and it's a ten
auditing hour battle to find and get the charge off that error.
In carefully studying this I found there were pcs Type A and Type B.
Type A runs easily even across errors. Type B packs up the meter on a
cough. NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF YOUR PRECLEARS ARE OR WERE ORIGINALLY TYPE B.
There are special differences in these two types.
Type A: Has few personal problems. Even when they occur isn't upset by
them. Handles life easily. Is energetic generally and able to work
efficiently at things. Takes setbacks optimistically. Feels good most of
the time.
Type B: Is deluged with personal problems. Can't see any way out. Gets
upset easily or is just in plain apathy and is never upset because things
aren't real anyway (like a boulder wouldn't get upset). Has a hard time in
life. Is generally tired and can't work very long at anything. Takes
setbacks emotionally or just collapses. Feels ill most of the time.
Those are two types of people. There are of course shades of grey in
between.
If you were to take a Type B and throw him or her to the GPMs you'd not
get anything as-ised.
What is the basic difference, then, between these two types of
condition? It isn't native or inherent. It can change.
If you tire a Type A out you can make him or her behave on GPMs like a
Type B. If you audit a Type A with the Auditor's Code clauses of food and
rest wildly disobeyed, you would be auditing, suddenly, a Type B pc. The
Type A will spring back faster of course but still he or she during that
period will have a packed up meter.
You could also inexpertly audit a Type A on wrong goals or sequences
and get a Type B pc reaction.
A difference between these two types of people is that one is more
rested (Type A) and one is tired (Type B). You can see this at any level of
processing. It registers in the amount of TA you get or don't get. A
chronically tired pc who is not eating won't get TA for there's no as-is of
locks. That's why the Auditor's Code has those clauses in it. Make your pc
rest and eat and keep him or her out of a tiring environment and you'll get
a lot more TA. If a pc gets no TA, just make him or her eat and sleep and
leave the world alone for a bit and bang-TA!
But it isn't only physical weariness. The other, main factor we're
interested in is why they're also tired.
A Type B can't be Cause!
Life flows in, in, in. The pc can't flow out. Here is the pc who can
only receive auditing. Never give any. Here is the pc who has to be HELPED
but never really helps. Here is the pc who has motivators but never any
overts.
Now, you see?
It takes those lower grades to raise the pc's Cause Level so that the
pc, on reaching Grade VI can as-is the bank. ONLY CAREFUL LOWER LEVEL
AUDITING CAN MAKE A TYPE B PC INTO A TYPE A!
We are running into this problem at Saint Hill now. Even an occasional
auditor, arriving here, is found to be below Cause. They can't as-is. Also
they can't put an examination answer back on the sheet. So they are here
for quite a while and all that time we now work on raising their Cause
Level so they can:
1. Use what they learn (that takes outflow)
2. As-is their PTPs (that takes the ability to be Cause)
3. Get up to Level VI materials without fainting at the sight of
them and
4. As-is GPMs.
That's the fight of the Supervisors at Saint Hill. Well, it's also our
fight all over the world.
The state of high Cause is also Keyed Out Clear.
So your programme is to:
1. Become very skilled with and successfully use processes which
lead toward Keyed Out Clear and
2. Centre the attention of your public on "A Keyed Out can be
Cause". Get trained. Be Cause. And in small type "You have to
attain a high Cause Level before you can even begin to think about
OT processing."
That puts their feet on the bottom rung of OT. And so help me how true,
it's the only way they'll ever make that bottom rung!
From time to time I will give you more concise data on old materials
which bring this beneficial condition about. This one we have done well,
can do and will do-to increase Cause in a person.
Suffice to say that 8C, and O/W in particular run alternately:
"In this lifetime, what have you done?"
"In this lifetime, what haven't you said?"
or just Itsa on any action (not just bad actions) will start your pc up
toward that bottom rung.
Only realization of actions done will key out a GPM. That's worth a
million words. Suffice it in that sentence. Not evil actions. Not
confessions. Not just social unwillingness to let one's deeds be known.
Any action. Any not speaking.
And a person's Cause Level will rise. Their psychosomatics key out (for
what is a psychosomatic but an inability to hold life off?). They feel
better. They begin to live. Their needles get floppy.
This is destimulative auditing.
If you learn it well and do it well, your pc will thrive.
If you centre your public's attention on becoming cause you will have
bodies in the shop.
And that's the approach to the bridge. Without that approach they don't
make it at all.
So you're in business. And it isn't a business you'll cease to be in
just because you can "do R6 on a pc". You'll only make the mistake once and
take the pc back to exactly what I'm describing in this HCO Bulletin. So
learn to do this well. We'll be doing it for a long time. And doing it
right now can save your practice or org.
LRH:gl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[On 30 June 1964 another HCO B was issued titled Field Auditor Targets
which had the same text as this HCO B, except for the following: The
distribution was only to "Franchise"; instead of the seven lines after "Two
things must be done:" on the second page of this issue, it said, "1. Close
the delivery gap fast. Get to Saint Hill and get trained. 2. Brighten up a
skill that you can do with your current training and centre the public's
interest on a target that you can deliver now on the lower levels. This is
the proposed programme, then, just I and 2 above." Also, the word "Org(s)"
was omitted or replaced by the word "Field" throughout.]
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
** 6407C07 SHSBC-27 Dissemination
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
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
[This HCO B was reissued on 5 December 1974, as Integrity Processing Series
6R, which was canceled by HCO B 9 December 1974, Effectiveness of Overts in
Processing, Integrity Processing Series 6RA. HCO B 9 December 1974 was
taken from HCO B 10 July 1964 which remains as originally issued.]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
9 July 1964
** 6407C09 SHSBC-28 Studying-Data Assimilation; also issued as ST-
2
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
14-15 July 1964
** 6407C14 SHSBC-29 Track and Bank Anatomy
** 6407C15 SHSBC-30 Organizational Operation
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.
LRH:nb.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
28-30 July 1964
** 6407C28 SHSBC-31 Campaign to Handle Psychosomatic
Ills
** 6407C30 SHSBC-32 Psychosomatic-Its Meaning in Scientology
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
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
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 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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
4-13 August 1964
** 6408C04 SHSBC-33 A Summary of Study; also issued as ST-3
** 6408C06 SHSBC-34 Study-Gradients and Nomenclature; also issued
as ST-4
** 6408C11 SHSBC-35 Evaluation of Information; also issued as ST-5
** 6408C13 SHSBC-36 Study and Education; also issued as ST-6
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
[The sections entitled "Clay Table Work in Training" and "Use on Courses"
have been reissued verbatim as HCO B 10 December 1970, Issue I, Clay Table
Work in Training.]
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
[The steps of Clay Table Clearing in this HCO B are cancelled by HCO B 27
September 1964, Clay Table Clearing. ]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 AUGUST AD14
Remimeo
SCIENTOLOGY II
HQS COURSE
THIS HCO BULLETIN CHANGES EXISTING CHECKSHEETS
This is the general outline of the Hubbard Qualified Auditor Course. If
the HQS Course being taught by a field auditor, a Franchise Holder, City
Office, or a Central Organization does not conform to this general outline
and specifications it must be changed at once.
Any student who has had an item checked out and initialled on his or
her checksheets prior to this HCO Bulletin is to be considered as having
passed that item. If an HQS certificate has been applied for by the
instructor, the student having completed the course, the certificate must
be issued regardless of these changes. All HQS certificates already issued
remain in force.
PURPOSE OF THE HQS COURSE
Personal gain to be expected: to be able to study and learn.
Auditing skills to be acquired: (a) To be able to run the CCHs on a pc
without ARC Breaking the pc and to achieve case gain. (b) To be able to sit
down as an auditor and run a session on repetitive commands on a pc with
gain.
Wisdom to be acquired: (a) The basic purposes of Scientology; (b) the
technology of study; (c) gradient scales; (d) tone scales; (e) the
Auditor's Code; (f) the Code of a Scientologist; (g) ARC (the logics and
axioms come at Level III now).
Texts: Scientology, The Fundamentals of Thought, Notes on Lectures.
Others to be issued.
Tapes: Lists to be issued from time to time but to include three
general divisions, (a) general discussion tapes about Scientology that I
have done; (b) tapes covering study in full; (c) tapes on ARC.
Practical Actions: TRs 0 to 9. Op Pro by Dup. Other minor TRs as
needful.
Processes to be adept in: 8C, ARC Straight Wire, Repetitive Processes.
What must NOT be taught: Subjects and tapes containing words not
defined at this level.
"THERAPEUTIC" TRs
There is no model session, no meter. Those belong in III.
There must be no slightest search for or thought of the TRs being
"therapeutic". Processing is unflat, not TRs. TRs are just learned with no
other consideration. The student can or can't do them.
There may not be any 75 ratings or 0 rating. Everything must be star
rated or, according to more modern technology, you will lose your student.
75 ratings are prohibited. Questions irrelevant to a student's actual need
from a tape or HCO Bulletin
are forbidden. Definitions of words dominate in all checkouts as per
recent article on checkouts in "The Auditor". Not only Scientology words
must be defined by the student.
This is the full course. Anything on existing checksheets contrary to
the above must be deleted. Where the above is missing in checksheets it
must be added.
You are making an auditor. Not processing a student. The auditor will
be able to audit if he knows his definitions and materials and can do the
drills easily.
If a student is well trained on these courses, we can then say of an
HQS: This being can
1. Study Scientology or anything else.
2. Run 8C.
3. Run repetitive processes (including O/W but only as a
repetitive process).
4. Audit within the framework of the Auditor's Code.
5. Can tell you what Scientology is all about.
And that's all we expect. And we will have full confidence in the
students' being able to do the above.
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
1-3 September 1964
** 6409C01 SHSBC-37 The PE Course
** 6409C03 SHSBC-38 Clearing-What It Is
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
Scientology Staff
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.
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 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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
15-22 September 1964
** 6409C15 SHSBC-39 Scientology and Tradition
** 6409C22 SHSBC-40 A Review of Study; also issued as ST-7
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1964
Remimeo
Sthil Instructors
HCO Hat Check on
all Acad Instructors
INSTRUCTION & EXAMINATION:
RAISING THE STANDARD OF
The basic reason students remain long on courses stems from inept
criticism by Instructors regarding what is required.
There is a technology of criticism of art, expressed beautifully in the
Encyclopaedia published by Focal Press.
In this article it stresses that a critic who is also an expert artist
tends to introduce unfairly his own perfectionism (and bias and
frustrations) into his criticism.
We suffer amazingly from this in all our courses. I had not previously
spotted it because I don't demand a student at lower levels produce results
found only in higher levels.
You can carelessly sum this up by "letting the student have wins" but
if you do you'll miss the whole point.
Example: A student up for a pass on his Itsa is flunked because he or
she couldn't acknowledge.
But a student at the Itsa level hasn't been taught to acknowledge.
This student hasn't even read the data on acknowledgement.
So the student can't pass Itsa level and so never does get to the level
where acknowledgement is taught-and if he does, really never passed, in his
own mind, Itsa and so hasn't advanced.
And we catch all our students this way and they don't therefore learn.
How is this done? How could this be?
The Instructor is an expert auditor. That's as it should be. But as an
expert auditor, bad execution of a level above where the student is
studying pains the Instructor. So he flunks the student because the
auditing looks bad.
But look here. The student wasn't being checked out as an auditor. The
student was only being checked out on Itsa.
Further, the action of auditing as a whole is so easy to an Instructor
who is an expert auditor that he fails to take it apart for instruction.
If I say the following, it will look ridiculous and you'll get the
point better: The student is up to pass TR 0. The Instructor on checkout
looks the student over and says, "You flunked the test." The student says,
"Why?" The Instructor says, "You didn't take the Class VI actions to clear
the pc of all his GPMs." All right, we can all see that that would be
silly. But Instructors do just that daily, though on a narrower band.
The Instructor puts in additives. As an expert auditor it seems natural
to him to say, "You flunked your test on Itsa because you never
acknowledged the pc." You get the point. This really is as crazy wide as
the ridiculous example above. What does Ack have to do with Itsa? Nothing!
Because the Instructor is an expert auditor, auditing has ceased to
have parts and is all one chunk. Okay. A good auditor regards it that way.
But the poor student can grasp any of the pieces because the whole chunk is
being demanded.
What's Itsa? It's Listen. Can the student listen? Okay, he can listen
but the expert says, "He didn't get 15 divisions of TA per hour." On the
what? "On the meter of course." What meter? That's Level II and Itsa is
Level 0. "Yes," the expert protests, "but the pc didn't get any better!"
Okay, so what pc is supposed to get better at Level 0. If they do it's an
accident, usually. Now does this student pass? "No! He can't even look at
the pc!" Well, that's TR 0 of Level I. "But he's got to look like an
auditor!" How can he? An auditor has to get through a comm course before
you can really call him that. "Okay, I'11 drop my standards _____" the
expert begins. Hell no, expert. You better pick up your standards for each
Level and for each small part of auditing.
What's it say at Level 0? "It says 'Listen'." Okay, then, damn it, when
the student is able to sit and listen and not shut a pc down with yak, the
student passes. "And the meter?" You better not let me catch you teaching
meters at Level 0.
And so it goes right on up through the Levels and the bits within the
Levels.
By making Itsa mysterious and tough, by adding big new standards to it
like TA and Ack you only succeed in never teaching the student Itsa! So he
goes on up and at Level IV audits like a bum. Can't control a pc. Can't
meter, nothing.
So the expert tries to make a student do Class VI auditing the first
day and that student is never trained to do any auditing at Level 0.
This nonsense repeated at Level I (by adding a meter, by purist
flunking "because the pc couldn't handle an ARC Break") and repeated again
at Level II ("because the pc couldn't assess") and at Level III........etc.
etc.
Well, if you add things all the time out of sequence and demand things
the student has not yet reached, the student winds up in a ball of
confusion like the cat getting into the yarn.
So we're not instructing. We're preventing a clear view of the parts of
auditing by adding higher level standards and actions to lower level
activities.
This consumes time. It makes a mess.
The new HCA always tries to teach his group a whole HCA course his
first evening home. Well, that's no reason seasoned veterans have to do it
in our courses.
If you never let a student learn Level 0 because he's flunked unless he
does Level VI first, people will stay on courses forever and we'll have no
auditors.
Instructors must teach not out of their OWN expertise but out of the
textbook expected actions in the Level the student is being trained in. To
go above that level like assessment in Level II or Ack and meters at Level
0 is to deny the student any clean view of what he's expected to do. And if
he never learns the parts, he'll never do the whole.
And that's all that's wrong with our instruction or our Instructors. As
expert auditors they cease to view the part the student must know as itself
and do not train and pass the student upon it.
Instead they confuse the student by demanding more than the part being
learned.
Instruction is done on a gradient scale. Learn each part well by
itself. And only then can assembly of parts occur into what we want--a well
trained student.
This is not lowering any standards. It's raising them on all training.
BULLETIN CHECKOUTS
The other side of the picture, theory, suffers because of a habit. The
habit is all one's years of formal schooling where this mistake is the
whole way of life.
If the student knows the words, the Theory Instructor assumes he knows
the tune.
It will never do a student any good at all to know some facts. The
student is expected only to use facts.
It is so easy to confront thought and so hard to confront action that
the Instructor often complacently lets the student mouth words, ideas that
mean nothing to the student.
ALL THEORY CHECKOUTS MUST CONSULT THE STUDENT'S UNDERSTANDING.
If they don't, they're useless and will ARC Break the student
eventually.
Course natter stems entirely from the students' non-comprehension of
words and data.
While this can be cured by auditing, why audit it all the time when you
can prevent it in the first place by adequate theory checkout?
There are two phenomena here.
FIRST PHENOMENON
When a student misses understanding a word, the section right after
that word is a blank in his memory. You can always trace back to the word
just before the blank, get it understood and find miraculously that the
former blank area is not now blank in the bulletin. The above is pure
magic.
SECOND PHENOMENON
The second phenomenon is the overt cycle which follows a misunderstood
word. When a word is not grasped, the student then goes into a non-
comprehension (blankness) of things immediately after. This is followed by
the student's solution for the blank condition which is to individuate from
it-separate self from it. Now being something else than the blank area, the
student commits overts against the more general area. These overts, of
course, are followed by restraining himself from committing overts. This
pulls flows toward the person and makes the person crave motivators. This
is followed by various mental and physical conditions and by various
complaints, fault-finding and look-what-you-did-to-me. This justifies a
departure, a blow.
But the system of education, frowning on blows as it does, causes the
student to really withdraw self from the study subject (whatever he was
studying) and set up in its place a circuit which can receive and give back
sentences and phrases.
We now have "the quick student who somehow never applies what he
learns".
The specific phenomena then is that a student can study some words and
give them back and yet be no participant to the action. The student gets A+
on exams but can't apply the data.
The thoroughly dull student is just stuck in the non-comprehend
blankness following some misunderstood word.
The "very bright" student who yet can't use the data isn't there at
all. He has long since ceased to confront the subject matter or the
subject.
The cure for either of these conditions of "bright non-comprehension"
or "dull" is to find the missing word.
But these conditions can be prevented by not letting the student go
beyond the missed word without grasping its meaning. And that is the duty
of the Theory Instructor.
DEMONSTRATION
Giving a bulletin or tape check by seeing if it can be quoted or
paraphrased proves exactly nothing. This will not guarantee that the
student knows the data or can use or apply it nor even guarantees that the
student is there. Neither the "bright" student nor the "dull" student (both
suffering from the same malady) will benefit from such an examination.
So examining by seeing if somebody "knows" the text and can quote or
paraphrase it is completely false and must not be done.
Correct examination is done only by making the person being tested
answer:
(a) The meanings of the words (re-defining the words used in his
own words and demonstrating their use in his own made-up
sentences), and
(b) Demonstrating how the data is used.
The examiner need not do a Clay Table audit just to get a student to
pass. But the examiner can ask what the words mean. And the examiner can
ask for examples of action or application.
"What is this HCO Bulletin's first section?" is about as dull as one
can get. "What are the rules given about______?" is a question I would
never bother to ask. Neither of these tell the examiner whether he has the
bright non-applier or the dull student before him. Such questions just beg
for natter and course blows.
I would go over the first paragraph of any material I was examining a
student on and pick out some uncommon words. I'd ask the student to define
each and demonstrate its use in a made-up sentence and flunk the first
"Well ... er ... let me see ...." and that would be the end of that
checkout. I wouldn't pick out only Scientologese. I'd pick out words that
weren't too ordinary such as "benefit" "permissive" "calculated" as well as
"engram".
Students I was personally examining would begin to get a hunted look
and carry dictionaries-BUT THEY WOULDN'T BEGIN TO NATTER OR GET SICK OR
BLOW. AND THEY'D USE WHAT THEY LEARNED.
Above all, I myself would be sure I knew what the words meant before I
started to examine.
Dealing with new technology and the necessity to have things named, we
especially need to be alert.
Before you curse our terms, remember that a lack of terms to describe
phenomena can be twice as incomprehensible as having involved terms that at
least can be understood eventually.
We do awfully well, really, better than any other science or subject.
We lack a dictionary but we can remedy that.
But to continue with how one should examine, when the student had the
words, I'd demand the music. What tune do these words play?
I'd say, "All right, what use is this bulletin (or tape) to you?" Questions
like, "Now this rule here about not letting pcs eat candy while being
audited, how come there'd be such a rule?" And if the student couldn't
imagine why, I'd go back to the words just ahead of that rule and find the
one he hadn't grasped.
I'd ask, "What are the commands of 8-C?" And when the student gave
them, I'd still have the task of satisfying myself that the student
understood why those were the commands. I'd ask, "How come?" after he'd
given me the commands. Or "What are you going to do with these?" "Audit a
pc with them," he might say. I'd say, "Well, why these commands?"
But if the student wasn't up to the point of study where knowing why he
used those commands was part of his materials, I wouldn't ask. For all the
data about not examining above level applies very severely to Theory
Checkout as well as to Practical and general Instruction.
I might also have a Clay Table beside my examiner's desk (and certainly
would have if I were an HCO hat checker, to which all this data also
applies) and use it to have students show me they knew the words and ideas.
Theory often says, "Well, they take care of all that in Practical." Oh
no they don't. When you have a Theory Section that believes that, Practical
can't function at all
Practical goes through the simple motions. Theory covers why one goes
through the motions.
I don't think I have to beat this to death for you.
You've got it.
L. RON
HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright � 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[The above HCO PL is modified by HCO PL 4 October 1964, reissued 21 May
1967, Theory Checkout Data, on page 488.]
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.
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 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
** 6409C29 SHSBC-41 Gradients
** 6410C13 SHSBC-42 Cycles of Action
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 OCTOBER 1964
Remimeo Reissued on 21 May 1967
All staff
All Students
Tech Hats
Qual Hats THEORY CHECK-OUT DATA
(Modifies HCO Pol Ltr of Sept 24, '64)
In checking out technical materials on students or staff, it has been
found that the new system as per HCO Pol Ltr of Sept 24, '64 is too lengthy
if the whole bulletin is covered.
Therefore the system given in Sept 24, '64 Pol Ltr is to be used as
follows:
1. Do not use the old method of covering each bit combined with the new
method.
2. Use only the new method.
3. Spot check the words and materials, do not try to cover it all. This
is done the same way a final examination is given in schools: only a
part of the material is covered by examination, assuming that if the
student has this right the student knows all of it.
4. Flunk on comm lag in attempts to answer. If the student
"er....ah....well... ," flunk it as it certainly isn't known well
enough to use. (Doesn't include stammerers.)
5. Never keep on examining a bulletin after a student has missed.
6. Consider all materials star-rated or not rated. Skip 75%'s. In other
words, the check-out must have been 100% right answers for a pass. 75%
is not a pass. When you consider a bulletin or tape too unimportant for
a 100% pass, just require evidence that it has been read and don't
examine it at all. In other words, on those you check out, require 100%
and on less important material don't examine, merely require evidence
of having read.
THE "BRIGHT" ONES
You will find that often you have very glib students you won't be able
to find any fault in who yet won't be able to apply or use the data they
are passing. This student is discussed as the "bright student" in the Sept
24, '64 Pol Ltr.
Demonstration is the key here. The moment you ask this type of student
to demonstrate a rule or theory with his hands or the paper clips on your
desk this glibness will shatter.
The reason for this is that in memorizing words or ideas, the student
can still hold the position that it has nothing to do with him or her. It
is a total circuit action. Therefore, very glib. The moment you say
"Demonstrate" that word or idea or principle, the student has to have
something to do with it. And shatters.
One student passed "Itsa" in theory with flying colours every time even
on cross-check type questions, yet had never been known to listen. When the
theory instructor said, "Demonstrate what a student would have to do to
pass Itsa," the whole subject blew up. "There's too many ways to do Itsa
auditing!" the student said. Yet on the bulletin it merely said "Listen".
That given as a glib answer was all right. But "demonstration" brought to
light that this student hadn't a clue about listening to a pc. If he had to
demonstrate it, the non-participation of the student in the material he was
studying came to light.
Don't get the idea that Demonstration is a Practical Section action.
Practical gives the drills. These demonstrations in Theory aren't drills.
Clay Table isn't used to any extent by a Theory Examiner. Hands, a
diagram, paper clips, these are usually quite enough!
COACHING IN THEORY
There is Theory Coaching as well as Practical Coaching.
Coaching Theory means getting a student to define all the words, give
all the rules, demonstrate things in the bulletin with his hands or bits of
things, and also may include doing Clay Table Definitions of Scientology
terms.
That's all Theory Coaching. It compares to coaching on drills in
Practical. But it is done on bulletins, tapes and policy letters which are
to be examined in the future. Coaching is not examining. The examiner who
coaches instead of examining will stall the progress of the whole class.
The usual Supervisor action would be to have any student who is having
any trouble or is slow or glib team up with another student of comparable
difficulties and have them turn about with each other with Theory Coaching,
similar to Practical Coaching in drills.
Then when they have a bulletin, tape or policy letter coached, they
have a check-out. The check-out is a spot check-out as above, a few
definitions or rules and some demonstration of them.
DICTIONARIES
Dictionaries should be available to students in Theory and should be
used in Theory Examination as well, preferably the same publication.
Dictionaries don't always agree with each other.
No Supervisor should try to define English language words out of his
own head when correcting a student as it leads to too many arguments. On
English words, open a dictionary.
A Scientology dictionary is available.
--------------
Remember that with Courses becoming briefer in duration, the number of
bulletins and tapes which the student must know on a Star-Rated basis is
also less.
General written examination for classification, however, remains on an
85% pass basis.
Be sure that students who get low marks constantly are also handled in
Review, preferably by definitions of words they haven't understood in some
former subject. Scientology is never the cause of consistent dullness or
glibness.
Processing of this nature can be on an Itsa basis. It does not have to
be Clay Table. Just finding the prior subject by discussion and discussing
its words usually blows the condition. I've seen it change the whole
attitude of a person in just 5 or 10 minutes of auditing on a "locate the
subject and word" basis.
Therefore, definitions exist at Levels 0 and I, but not with Clay Table
or assessment, only by Itsa. You'd be surprised how well it works and how
fast. "Subjects you didn't like", "words you haven't grasped" are the
discussion questions.
The subject of "wrong definitions cause stupidity or circuits, followed
by overts and motivators", is not easy to get across because it is so
general amongst Mankind. There is a possibility that past lives themselves
are wiped out by changing language, whether it is the same language that
changes through the years or shifting nationality. But however that may be,
don't be discouraged at the difficulties you may have in getting this
principle understood and used in Scientology departments-the person you are
trying to convince has definitions out somewhere also!
LRH:jw.jp.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright � 1964, 1967 Founder
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 mess.
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
20-27 October 1964
** 6410C20 SHSBC-43 Levels-The Reason for Them
** 6410C27 SHSBC-44 The Failed Case
THE BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES
by
L. Ron Hubbard
Published
November 1964
The Book of Case Remedies, "A Manual Covering Preclear Difficulties and
Their Remedies," by L. Ron Hubbard, was first published in November 1964,
at Saint Hill Manor, It is Volume II of the Clearing Series, and the first
edition gave auditors necessary points of technology for the last push to
the great Releasing and Clearing successes that followed.
In his instructions on how to use this book, Ron says: "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.''
The 1968 expanded edition added L. Ron Hubbard's HCO Bulletins of 9
November 1967, "Revision of Remedy A, Remedy B, and S and Ds," and 13
January 1968, "S & Ds." In addition, the first five chapters contain data
on Clears and OTs and auditing basics. The Remedies are divided into two
sections, the first having remedies applying to pcs, auditors and any
person. The second part, starting with Remedy R, is mainly for Case
Supervisors and the Remedies apply to any session. Chapter 8 contains
technical notes including the difference between ARC Break Assessments and
By-passed Charge Assessments. At the back is a handy index to the Remedies.
As Ron says at the end, "You have here the secrets of fourteen years of
experience with patching up cases and keeping them going."
60 pages, one diagram, soft-cover with plastic comb binding. 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 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.
LRH :jw.rd
copyright �1964 L. RON HUBBARD
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
3-10 November 1964
** 6411C03 SHSBC-45 Programmes
** 6411C04 SHSBC-48 Comments on Clay Table TVD by LRH
** 6411C10 SHSBC-46 PTPs, Overts and ARC Breaks
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
[This HCO B is amended by HCO B 21 February 1966, Definition Processes,
Volume VI-150.]
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
17 November 1964
** 6411C17 SHSBC-47 Styles of Auditing
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
[This HCO B is corrected by HCO B 26 December 1964, Routine O-A (Expanded),
page 520.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 DECEMBER AD 14
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Co-audit
SCIENTOLOGY 0
CURRICULUM FOR LEVEL 0-HAS
Effective January 1, 1965 (AD15)
The Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist Course for the HAS certificate is
the first requisite course. It is taught in qualified Academies. It can be
preceded by a personal efficiency course and for this franchise holders may
issue, on the form provided-by a Central Organization, a course completion
certificate. But this is not requisite to enrolling in an HAS Course.
For some years HAS courses have been very successful. However, at
higher levels lack of training in basics has been a stumbling block to
auditors. Therefore this course becomes a formal Academy course out of
actual training need and has a proper and precise curriculum.
The HAS Course is a rigorous course. To cover its materials in 160
course hours requires great diligence and application.
THEORY REQUIREMENTS
The Study Materials.
Code of a Scientologist.
The Auditor's Code.
The Dianetic Axioms.
The Pre-Logics.
The Logics.
The Scientology Axioms.
Scientology Vocabulary.
The ARC Triangle.
The Tone Scale.
The 8 Dynamics.
Relationship of Thetan-Body-Reactive Mind.
HCO Bulletins on Listen Style Auditing.
HCO Bulletins on Level 0 Processes.
How to make out an Auditor's Report.
The Local and Worldwide Organizations of Scientology.
An Org Board.
The Symbols of Dianetics and Scientology.
A Short History of Dianetics and Scientology.
The Gradation and Classification Programme.
PRACTICAL REQUIREMENTS
Listen Style Drills.
Patter Drills for Zero Routines.
The Prompters (responses to pcs in difficulty about talking).
How to set up a session.
AUDITING REQUIREMENTS
All Routines of Level Zero run and received.
STUDY GOAL
A good familiarity with the substance and precision of Scientology.
GOAL AS AN AUDITOR
To be able to get people to talk to him or her easily without meeting
it with censure, interruptions or invalidation. To be a safe, trustworthy
auditor who can listen.
GOAL AS A PC
To be able to talk more freely to others and be more comfortable about
it.
--------------
This is the totality of study-and achievements.
No axioms or logics must be learned verbatim but they as well as their
words must be understood and the student must be able to demonstrate what
they mean.
Vocabulary should be glib and useful to the student.
Cases that are severe cases may be relegated to the HGC at student
rates but only to have Remedies A and B run. Five hour or 25 hour
intensives may be offered students for this purpose. No attempt should be
made to get this auditing done on course and no instructor may do it. Any
time spent in being audited is either added to course time or done by the
week-end HGC.
Instructors may not audit students on the HAS course, but may give
minor assists or demonstrations.
Instructors must be alert on the consequences of missed definitions
and, due to limited course time, may not waste any time noticing a student
is dragging and doing something about it in the limits given above.
Course texts and HCO Bulletins are mainly already in existence. But
they may be re-compiled or condensed in future publications.
--------------
This is the totality of the HAS Course.
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
[This HCO B is corrected by HCO B 26 December 1964, Routine O-A
(Expanded).]
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
15-22 December 1964
** 6412C15 SHSBC-49 Communication-A Gradient on
Duplication
** 6412C22 SHSBC-50 Mastery of the GPMs (film)
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
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
30 December 1964
** 6412C30 SHSBC-51 Pattern of the Bank (film)
SUBJECT INDEX
1962-1964
ARC (cont. )
A CCHs, ARC in the CCHs, 46
essence of auditing is ARC handled and
controlled
A=A=A, identification is most easily present when by
auditor, 426
time sense is awry, 330 with existence, 347
aberration, aberrative, ARC break (s), ARC broken; see also
rudiments, 293,
basic aberration is withheld flow, 16 438
common denominator-interiorization into past assessment,
306, 338, 352, 418
and unawareness of PTenvironment, 50 by-passed
charge assessment and ARC break
fundamental of aberration: all wrong actions are
assessment, two different actions, 470; see
result of an error followed by an insistence on
also Book of Case Remedies
having been right, 322 continuing ~ after pc has
cognited invalidates
is composited of unknowns, therefore pc can't tell
pc's cognition and cuts itsa line and may
what is to be run, 76 cause a new ARC break,
418
self-determined (not other-determined) flows can don't
ever do an ~ until pc has given up trying
be aberrative, 14 to untangle it, 338
single source of aberration is time, 277, 287 four
ways of using lists, 306
ability regained, gradient scale of, 342 how to do, 306,
345, 469
abridged style auditing; see auditing, abridged style if pc's
attention is still on auditor correct
Academy, teach fundamentals of Scientology, 52; see
charge has not been found, 346
also training isn't auditing because it doesn't
use auditing
accused, don't run a process that makes pc feel ~, comm
cycle, 469
441 L-1, General ARC Break Assessment, 307
acknowledge (ment); see also TR 2 L-2, listing sessions,
assessment sessions, 307
all auditors acknowledge too little, 292 L-3, R3R
engram running by chains, 308
big or multiple is taught at Level 1I to shut pc L4,
Routine 3N, GPMs, all Goals sessions, 308
off when pc is going off subject, 501 natter is
handled by ~, 332
E-Meter dependence is created by invalidation or often
has to be done through a dirty needle,
poor acknowledgement by auditor, 334 306
half-acknowledgement, defn., ways of keeping pc purpose
of ARC break assessment, 346
talking by giving pc feeling he is being heard
sources of trouble in doing ~, 348
and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2, 501 uses for
~, 345
over acknowledgement, defrL, acknowledging be- what it
consists of, 469
fore pc has said all, 336 what it requires in an
auditor, 345
actions, only realization of actions done will key out auditing is
not possible in presence of , 468, 469
a GPM, 435 auditing over top of ~ can reduce a graph, hang
pc
"afraid to find out" type of case, 36 up in sessions or worsen
case, 470
all style auditing; see auditing, all style auditor or student who
has trouble with an "ARC
alter-is auditor, changes when the pc changes, 75 breaky pc",
how to handle, 58
alter-is, squirrels are only Case Levels 7 or 6 dramatiz- by-
passed charge, 281, 285; see also ARC breaks,
ing ~ on Scientology instead of their track, 327
cause of ARC breaks
analysis, case; see case analysis does not always = ARC break,
but ARC break
anchor points, don't drive in ~ by shoving things at
always = by-passed charge, 417
or gesture toward pc, 161 is never what pc says it
was if pc is still ARC
apathy, misery and desire for suicide and death, cause
broken, 465
of, 252 by-passed charge assessment on an ARC
broken
apathy, pc in grief or apathy, cause and remedy of pc,
never do a, 469
[R2, R3], 251 cause of ARC breaks,
apathy, pc rises in tone up to lower levels of Tone
all ARC breaks stem from missed withholds, 58
Scale, he comes up to apathy, 419 charge
restimulated and left prior to where
apparency, time is actual but is also an ~, 330
auditor is working can cause an ~, 282, 290,
ARC; see also communication 416
all after charge isbased on prior ARC,442 cut pc
off, get in more actions than pc is
care should be taken not to heavily run an out-of-
allowed to answer and you'll have a dirty
ARC type process, command which asks for
needle,thenstuckTAandthenan~,419
out-of-affinity moments, out-of-reality moments
double question [Q and A] is primary source of
and out-of-communication incidents, 441
~ and out rudiments, 74
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
ARC break(s), ARC broken (cont.) ARC break(s), ARC broken (cont)
cause of ARC breaks (cont.) preclear and ARC break (cont)
high percentage of ~ occur because of failure to
pc in an ~ is in grip of reaction which was in
understand pc, 162 incident, now
fully on automatic, 286, 417
leaving an overt touched on case and calling it
pc is ARC breaky because of M/WIH, 20
clean will cause a future ~ with auditor, 439
pc never knows why the ARC break, 282, 417
missing a withhold ornotgetting all of it issole
rule: if pc ARC breaks, issue no further
source of ~, 23 auditing commands
until pc and auditor are
people do not, on known charge; it is always hid-
satisfied cause of ARC break has been
den or earlier charge that causes ~, 347, 417
located and indicated, 293, 418
prime source of ~ in engram running sessions is
to tell pc what his PTP is and then audit what
by-passing charge by time mishandling by
auditor said it was will inevitably ~ pc, 463
auditor, 287 when pc is talking and
you're getting no TA
Q and A causes ARC breaks by by-passing
you already have an ARC break or are about
charge, 283, 285, 419 to get one,
336
source of all ~ is BPC, 281, 306, 417 PTPs, overts
and ARC breaks, 468; see also BCR
charge left after (later) (nearer pt) than where
rudiment, if you miss on one rudiment the next
auditor is working hardly ever causes ~, 282
even if really hot can seem to be null by reason
cycle of the ARC break, 253, 417 of ARC break, 105
dirty needle, its cause is cut itsa or an Ll session R2
and R3 ARC breaks, 251
ARC break, 384, 414 auditor's and D of P's
views on, 253
double ARC break; see Book of Case Remedies
different than other ARC breaks, 251
E-Meter and ARC breaks, 102, 362 fifteen principal
causes of, 251, 252
ARC breaks stop a meter from reacting, 73, 96,
R2H-ARC Breaks by Assessment, 297
102, 36 1, 362 R2-12A ARC break always equals
wrong Routine 2,
E-Meter can go dead in presence of monstrous
how to handle, 237
ARC break and it can go gradiently dull in R6
ARC breaks, 418
presence of out rudiments, 96, 361 ARC Break
Process(es) [1963], 284
E-Meter is invaluable in locating by-passed Co-Audit
ARC Break Process, commands of, 319
charge and curing an ARC break, 418 ARC Process,
commands of, 95
engrams contain heaviest ARC break with thetan's ARC
Processes, dub-in case should be running ~ as
environment and other beings, 291 case is
over-charged for engrams, 293
handling ARC breaks, 469; see also ~ assessment ARC Straight
Wire, new [1963]: "What attitude was
don't use a process, find the missed charge, 284
not received?" "What reality was not perceived
find and indicate the correct BPC, 281, 282
(seen)?" "What communication was not ac
in R3R, 293, 300 knowledged?", 284
living, two conditions of, ARC broken, not ARC as-is(ness),
broken, 347 chronically tired pc who is not
eating won't get
missed withholds and ARC breaks, 20, 23, 58 TA for
there's no as-is of locks, 434
natterings, upsets, ARC breaks, critical tirades, it
takes lower grades to raise pc's cause level so
are restimulated but missed or partially
that pc, on reaching Grade VI, can as-is the
missed withholds, 26 bank, 433, 434
no ARC breaks when missed withholds have mass, as-
isness of, 49
been cleaned up, 58 pc who makes no gain is
the pc who will not as-is,
overts, don't ARC break pc in getting overts off,
who will not confront, 36
464, 468 time track, unless time track is made
available it
permitted auditor statements, 464 cannot be as-ised
by pc and so remains aber
preclear and ARC break, rative, 276
auditing over top of ~ can reduce a graph, hang
"asserted", another name for suggested, used mainly
pc up in sessions or worsen case, 470 in
checkout, and occasionally in routine nulling
auditor ARC breaks pc by demanding more
when pc is declaring "It is my goal",119
than is there, 439 assessment (s), 208, defn,
whole action of obtaining
if pc knows what charge it is he does not ARC
a significant item from pc [1962], 203; see also
break or he ceases to be ~, 347, 465
listing
never discipline or Q and Awith~pc, 286 by-
passed charge assessment is auditing because
pc becomes critical of anything outside engram
you clean every tick of needle on list being
(room, auditor, Scientology, the technology)
assessed, 469
it is an ARC break, 293 by-passed charge,
pc will feel better moment right
pc can always be told what has been missed and
type of by-passed charge is identified by ~ and
will almost always settle down at once, 282
indicated by auditor, 418
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
assessment(s) (cont.) audit(ing) (cont.)
by TA, no ~ list is continued in Levels I to III by-
passed charge assessment is auditing because
beyond seeing a TA move until that TA motion
you clean every tick of needle on list being
is handled, 373 assessed, 469
development of assessments, 300 case level as an index of
~ ability is discarded, it is
for clearing intensive, Pre-Clearing Scale, 166
only an index of how-hard-to-train, 316
make sure it was the bank the meter read, not CCHs;see
CCHs
breath or body motion, 394 Clay Table Auditing; see
Clay Table Auditing
preclear interest as a method of assessment, 325 "coffee
shop auditing" described, 505
Prehav assessment; see Prehav assessment commands; see
commands
R2H assessment; see Routine 2H comm cycle, 340
R3R assessment; see R3R ARC break assessment
isn't auditing because it
slow assessment; see slow assessment doesn't
use auditing comm cycle, 469
tone arm assessment, 369, 372 auditor who
interrupts or changes an ~ before
what assessment is prevented by during 2-10, 2-12,
it is complete is Q and A-ing, 410
3GAXX, 3-21, 203 charge is removed from case
only by comm
3DXX assessment; see Routine 3DXX cycle pc to
auditor, 335, 414
3GAXX assessment; see Routine 3GAXX is a cycle of
action; it starts with auditor asking
assist(s), 141, 505 a question pc can understand,
getting pc to
like a session, has a beginning and an end, Audi-
answer it and acknowledging that answer,
tor's Code is observed and auditing comm cycle
410
is used, but it lacks any Model Session, 505
line pc to auditor is somewhat senior to comm
O/W is best repetitive process for, 99 line
auditor to pc, 335, 336
Remedies A and B are not always used as ~, 507 covert
auditing, 491
assumptions, safe, 357; see also service facsimiles cycle,
basic error of auditing cycle (diagram), 337
attention, cycle, get your pc trained into what auditing cycle
ARC break assessment: if pc's attention is still on
is, 490
auditor correct charge has not been found, 346
cycle, violations of, can bring about overwhelm,
control pc's attention, 30 400
master one action and center people's attention
Definitions Processing; see Definitions Processing
upon it, 432, 433 direct style auditing means
straight, concentrated,
R3R, interest is only absorbed attention and a
intense, applied in a direct manner, 502
desire to talk about it, 301 discipline is
needed to make processes work, 263
audit(ing), def~, auditor gives pc something to essence of
auditing is not finding what is wrong
answer, pc answers it and when pc has answered
with pc and hammering at it; it is ARC handled
it to his satisfaction, auditor acknowledges it,
and controlled by auditor, 426
426 faults present in the auditing if clearing did
not
abridged style auditing, 501 occur [R3SC], 355
sticks to essentials and drops rote where it gradient
scale of ability regained, 342
impedes case advance, 502 gradient scale of
auditing, 493
all style auditing, 503 gross auditing errors (GAEs),
509
any system which reduces charged condition of guiding
secondary style is steering pc toward
time track without reducing but increasing
revealing something or something revealed and
awareness and decisionability of pc is valid
handling it withitsa, 506
processing; any system which seeks to handle guiding
style auditing consists of two-way comm
charge but reduces pc's awareness and decision-
that steers pc into revealing a difficulty fol
ability is not valid processing but is degrading,
lowed by repetitive process to handle what has
287 been revealed, 500, 506
ARC break and auditing;see ARCbreak guiding style
auditing is two-way comm and
assist is different from auditing as such in that it
formal auditing, 500
lacks any Model Session, 505 is an exact
science, not an art, 59
auditor's perception of pc, 357 itsa line, when it is cut
~ ceases to work, 337
basic auditing, 335, 336 level of auditing, each,
controls pc's attention a
dirty needle, its cause lies in basic auditing not
little more than last, 371
in technique errors, 384, 414 listen style
auditing, 377, 498, 511
handling of pc as a being, auditing cycle, meter,
listing is auditing, 53
comprise the segment of processing known
listing is slightly contrary to early auditing philos
as, 385 ophy, 160
is necessary for technique to work, 385 masses
are released off body and out of thetan's
by Lists-L.1 and L.4, 423 bank in auditing, 256
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
audit(ing) (cont.) auditor(s)('s) (cont.)
muzzled auditing is stark total of TRs 0 to 4 and becomes
an auditor when he or she finds out that
not anything else added, 499 it's the
basics that count, 425
new pc, by-passed charge, indicating BPC is a necessary
liabilities of auditing new pcs, 491 auditor
action which at first glance may seem
R-factor to new pcs, 490 evaluative, 465
no auditing means "while seeming to deliver audit- CCHs and
auditors; see CCHs
ing, actually get nothing done", 220 Class VI
auditor, things he should know [1964],
pc, audit the pc in front of you, not some other pc
412
or generalized object, 47 confidence, importance
of, 326
present time problems and overts, other auditing is
dangerous auditor, characteristics of and remedy
not possible in presence of, 468 for, 32, 36
question, pcs can say whatever else they please, dirty
needle and auditor; see dirty needle
but they must answer auditing question or no don't
drive in anchor points by shoving things at
auditing occurs, 490 or gesture toward pc, 161
remedy is something you do to get pc into con- E-Meter
goes null on a gradient scale of misses by
dition for routine auditing, 485 ~; the more
misses the less meter reads, 105
required skills of processing and why, 314 evaluation,
accidental evaluation may occur when
restimulated charge that is then blown gives us the
auditor repeats what pc said, 161, 414
actionofauditing,290,347,416 evaluation, auditor
never says what overt is for
results are best achieved in a session and a session
that's evaluation, 464
depends upon a self-determined agreement to field
auditor targets, 432
be audited, 491 good auditor, actions of, 426, 427
rote style auditing, 499 invalidation, avoid use of
"you" to pc, 161
rough auditing reduces havingness, 225 is in absolute
control of bank-it always does what
rule: don't demand more than pc can tell you or
you tell it to do, 413
receive less than pc has to say, 336 itsa, a
silent auditor invites itsa, 370
secondary styles, 505 job of auditor is to free thetan by
digging him out
session; see session of his time track, 288
skills, 218, 314 judgment, 316
by Scientology levels [1964], 411 means "a
listener", 335
five basic auditing skills, 326 natural and
dangerous , difference between, 32
sold by intensives, 153 not understanding what pc said
or meant, how to
student auditing assignments, 431 handle, 161, 414
student auditing, inability to clean up needle is object
is to get pc to look so that pc can tell the
biggest hole in ~, 214 auditor, 23, 335,
415
styles of auditing, 377, 498, 505 observation of pc, 357,
360
tape recording sessions, points to look for, 378
outnesses,
theory of charge erasure, 291 acknowledging too
little, 292
three parts: basic auditing, technique and case
acting like a spectator instead of being in con
analysis, 385 trol, 74, 273
to get auditing into a state of perfection, know
asserting rightness, making others wrong, 327
basics, know practical, 61 auditor errors add
charge; pc then is over
tone arm action, most vital necessity of ~ at any
whelmed, 401
level of Scientology is to get, 369 cleaning
a clean meter is asking for trouble, 335
TRs must contain the correct data of auditing, 79
consistently missing charge or consistently fail using Scientology to
handle situations in life is a ing to anticipate
missed charge, result of,
whole subject in itself and it isn't ~, 491
286
watch pc's eyes, don't take auditing actions if pc is
disagreement with data measures degree of
not looking at you, 336 - unworkability
he'll enter into processing,
"without the person knowing anything about it",
326
491 failure to take pc's data; you take pc's
data,
you are running a thetan and his bank while
never take his orders, 292, 415
helped and hindered by body, 255 out TRs and
no impingement get no reads, 82
Auditing by Lists, 423 Q and A, 37, 74, 410
auditor(s)('s), repeating what the pc said, 161, 414
alter-is auditor, changes when pc changes, 75
perception of pc, 357
ARC break assessment and auditor; see ARC break poorer
he is, the simpler actions he's assigned, 217
assessment preclear actions all have an exact ~
response, 59
bad "auditor", 32 raising cause level of, 434
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
auditor(s)('s) (cont.) beginning rudiments; see rudiments, beginning
reasons why some auditors cannot run engrams on behavior, two
types-that calculated to be construc
pcs, 287 tive and that calculated to be
disastrous, 407
requirements, being at different lifetimes is good and evil,
408
complete precision required of today's ~, 52 being who is
something cannot observe it; being who
has to be skilled on one process at least and
looks at something ceases to be it, 50
know all about it before he can do two, between lives
implants, 333
432 big mid ruds; see rudiments, middle
must be perfect on a meter, defined, 104 Big Tiger
Drill, 196
must know basic laws and mechanics of time blow, by-
passed charge can cause person to blow out
track in order to run engrams, 273 of
session, a course or the org, 346
responsible for session, 161,414,425,426 blows, student is
slow or blows, reason for lies in
skill, 315, 326 failure to understand words used in
his training,
by case level [1963], 314 451
is directly measured by amount of TA he can blow,
students trying to blow do so only after matter
get, 373, 413 has not been confronted and
handled in routine
mark of skilled is ability to remedy a case
supervision; left unhandled, situations become
and then get on with routine auditing, 485
blows, 431
staff ~, groove in for wins and TA action, 327 body,
statements, permitted auditor statements, 464
discolors when mass from bank is brought in on it,
takes pc's data, never his orders, 415 255
three hats of, 387 GPM, more advanced the GPM the more
careful
time track obeys auditor; time track does not obey
you have to be of the body, 256
a preclear (early in auditing), 274 in auditing,
masses are released off body and out
training; see training of thetan's bank, 256
trouble with an ARC breaky pc or no gain, how to motion,
394
handle auditor who has, 58 doesn't count as
TA, 413
Auditor's Code is observed in giving an assist and TA
conscious body-moving pc, how to cure,
auditing comm cycle is used, 505 373
Auditor's Code, processes do not work when admin- TA is
never touched during sneezing, ~, etc.,
istered outside and without skillfully practiced
and no recording is made, 397, 443
TRs, 263 TA shifts because of body motion,
yawning,
Auditor's Report, use of, 444; see also Auditor
asking questions, and particularlybecause of
Admin Series [IX-3] protests do not
count in reading TA position
auto-control, no-confidence induces a sort of ~ in
[R2, R3], 241
session which induces a dirty needle, 93 pain,
person could feel pain only as himself (thetan
automaticity is discharged by indicating area of plus
body), 176
charge only, 282 thetan vs. body, 255
awareness, E-Meter locates charged areas below ~ of boiling off
pc, equals missed withhold, 59
pc and verifies that charge has been removed, bonus
package (BP), 189
334, 416 Book Mimicry; see CCH 4
bouncer throws pc backward, forward, up or down
from the track and so makes it
apparently
B unavailable, 275
BPC; see by-passed charge
bad "auditor", 32 bronchitis, example of case analysis on chronic
bronbad indicators; see indicators chitis, 388
bank; see reactive mind button, never ask the meter after a pc
volunteers a
basic, defrL, first incident (engram, lock, overt act) on
button, 285, 415
any chain, 274 buttons, order of big mid rud buttons
[1963],
charge is held in place by basic on chain, 41, 290
248
first incident of any chain is fully or partially un- by-
passed charge(s), 417
known to person, 28, 41 ARC break and BPC; see
ARC break
incidents, later than ~ incidents are run either to
blowdown of tone arm is meter reaction of having
uncover more ~ (earlier) incidents or to clean
found correct by-passed charge, 346
up chain after ~ has been found and erased, can
cause person to blow out of session, or out of
290 an org or a course or Scientology, 346
basic auditing; see auditing, basic auditing case is the whole
sum of past BPC, 347
basic basic, defn., first engram on the whole time does not
always = ARC break, but ARC break
track, 274 always = by-passed charge, 417
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
by-passed charge(s) (cont. ) case(s) (cont.)
E-Meter is invaluable in locating by-passed charge natural
auditor and dangerous auditor, difference
and curing an ARC break, 418 between is
not case level but a type of case, 32
howchargecanbeby-passed,281 no case progress, persons with
heavy overts on
indicating BPC, relationship to evaluation, 465
Scientology make, 185
is explanation for violence of M/W/Hs, 285 non-gain or
slow-gain cases, 185,187
is in some degree a missed withhold, missed by
programming cases [1963], 331
both auditor and pc, 306, 417 progress marked by
rock slams, 212
pc's subjective reality on gain will not compare to
remedies, The Book of Case Remedies, 495
TA action, if charge by-passed, until BPC repair,
67
located, 368 R3R, which cases can run, 331
pc will feel better moment right type of is State of Case
Scale, Levels 1 to 8, 289
identified by assessment and indicated by audi-
worsen when audited over an ARC break, 470
tor, 418 case folder, almost only way to completely bar
door
several can exist and be found on one list, 418 on
pc is to lose his ~ or fail to put all lists and
by-passed charge assessment and ARC break assess- reports
in it, 220
ment, two different actions, 470; see also BCR Case
Supervisor, establishment and purpose of, 395
by-passed charge assessment is auditing because you cause level
of auditors, raising, 434
clean every tick of needle on list being assessed,
cause level of pc, raising, 434, 436, 438, 439
469 cause, preclears who are insufficiently cause in
their
by-passed charge assessment on an ARC broken pc, daily
lives cannot as-is bank, 433
never do, 469 cause, state of high ~ is also keyed-out
Clear, 435
by-passed item defined, 182 CCHs, 310
are "familiarization" processes that
permit pc to
confront control and duplication, 43
C are good on auditors, 34
flatness, forget the 20 minute test, 3
times equally
case(s), defn, whole sum of past by-passed charge, done are
enough to see a CCH is flat, 46,127
347; see also preclear gains vanished when the
ARC ran out, 46
"afraid to find out" type of case, 36 must be taught
exactly as they are used in session,
analysis, 385 complete with two-way comm, 79
establishes two things: what is going on with
Opening Procedure by Duplication different than
case and what should be done with it, 386
CCHs, 45, 68
health research and ~, 388 originations and CCHs,
126
steps, 386, 388 handling originations, 47
betterment, without TA motion, no charge is pick up
a physical originationwhenithappens,
being released and no actual ~ is observed, 329,
126
335 take up each new physical change
manifested as
charge is removed from case only by comm cycle
though it were an origin by pc and query it,
pc to auditor, 335, 414 46, 47, 49
condition of ~ day to day, what it depends on, preclear
kept in two-way comm, 46
290 produced tone arm action while higher level pro
destimulation of case can produce some astonish-
cesses did not, 43
ing changes in beingness [ 1 963 ], 373
producing change do not go on but flatten that
dub-in case should be running ARC Processes CCH, 127
as case is over-charged for engrams, 293 purpose
of the CCHs, 47, 50
gain; see gain repair of CCHs, 67, 68
grind case, the audit forever case, is an afraid to
running CCHs, 44, 46,127
find out case, 37 alternated with
Prepchecking [1962], 51, 127
level(s), correct: no antagonism to pc, Tone 40 not
shout
as an index of auditing ability is discarded,
ed, no endurance marathon in progress, 45
it is only an index of how-hard-to-train,
correct version of CCHs, 127, 310
316 done right flatten CCHs done wrong,
68
auditor skills by case level [1963], 314
run wrong can drive pc out of PT, 50
percentages of case levels, 331 Tactile Havingness
is a CCH type of process, 43
sanity and ~, relationship to training, 327 Upper
Indoc attitude makes CCHs grim, 47
time sense compared to case level, 330 when to use
CCHs, 43, 44
1-8 [1963], 289 CCH 1, Give Me That Hand, commands and
how to
must not be run without TA action or with mini-
run, 310
mal TA action, 331, 413 use only right hand, 127
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
CCH 2, Tone 40 8-C, commands and how to run, charge (cont.)
311 tone arm motion, without, no charge is being
CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry, commands and how to released
and no actual case betterment is
run, 312 observed, 329, 413
CCH 4, Book Mimicry, commands and how to run, checkouts must
consult student's understanding, 480,
312 488
CDEI Scale, goals listing using Create ~,143 checksheets, 227
CDEI Scale on inflow and outflow, 16 chronic somatics; see
somatics, chronic
central org and field auditor targets, 432 circuits key out with
knowingness, 6
chain(s), circuits, valences are circuits are valences, 6
defn, series of incidents of similar nature or Class II
Model Session [1964], 398, 428
similar subject matter, 28 Class VI auditor, things he
should know, 412
defn., series of similar engrams, or of similar locks, clay,
causes and handling of a pc just doodling in
274 clay, 496, 497
defn, chain of incidents, makes up a whole adven- clay demos,
how to make, 452, 453; see also clay
ture or activity related by same subject, general
table
location or people, understood to take place in clay,
physical handling of, 455
a long time period, weeks, months, years or clay table,
even billions or trillions of years, 275 any part
of mind or any term in Scientology can
basic of chain; see basic be demonstrated on a, 452
engram running by chains; see engram running construction
of clay tables, 451
of incidents has only one basic which is earliest goofs,
476
engram received from or overt act committed IQ
increased by HGC use of ~,454
against subject, location or beings which make
label each clay object, 452, 477, 509
it a chain, 275 mass parts are done by clay,
significance or
overt chain; see overt thought parts by label, 452
R3R and chains; see R3R thin-edged ring of clay with a
large hole in it is
unknown incident pins chains, 41 usually used to
signify a pure significance,
will not go nul until its basic is reached, 41
452
withhold chain behaves exactly like any chain, 28 use,
452, 487
change, prior confusion to self-determined ~,1 1 6 work,
charge, 290, 416 in training and processing, 451, 453
defn, stored quantities of energy in time track, is
Level III, 466
289, 416 is not for cases who get no TA in
general, 486
defn, stored energy or stored or recreatable poten-
on definitions, 451
tials of energy, 290 pc must label everything
made in ~, 509
all after charge is based on prior ARC, 442 what
clay table work handles, 466
ARC break and charge; see ARC break Clay Table Auditing,
importance of getting auditing
auditing and charge; see auditing questions answered
in ~, 490
automaticity is rendered discharged by indicating Clay Table
Auditing, two activities of, 456
area of charge only, 282 Clay Table Auditing, who may
use, 487
by-passed charge; see by-passed charge Clay Table Clearing, 456,
457, 475, 483, 484
chronic, 291 auditing cycle vital in ~, 497
E-Meter and charge; see E-Meter auditor is handling chief
urges of pc, not trying to
erasure, auditing theory of charge erasure, 291
teach pc, 457
gains on pc can be measured in terms of charge dis-
Clay Table Healing and ~ are different, 472
charged, 325 direct style auditing, 502
how it reacts on needle and TA, 290 does not go into
physical ills, 458
is held in place by basic on chain, 290 errors, 475,
476, 477, 483, 493, 496
overwhelms; auditor errors add charge; pc then is is Level
IV, 487
overwhelmed, 401 is used to achieve pc's
rehabilitation and raised IQ
postulates at time of incident contain ~, 349 in
various fields, 456
removed from case only by comm cycle pc to pc should
have TAaction onlowerlevels first,486
auditor, 335, 414 process of clearing words and
symbols, 474
slows down responses, 400 representing the word, 496
stuck TA is always caused by running pc above steps of
Clay Table Clearing, 458
pc's tolerance of charge, 350 was called Clay
Table IQ Processing, 454, 456
TA slows down when pc goes into more ~ than he Clay Table
Healing, 453, 472
can itsa easily, 374, 413 abridged style auditing,
501
time track and charge; see time track Clay Table Clearing
and ~ are different, 472
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
Clay Table Healing (cont.) cognition, invalidation of pc's, 418
don'ts, 473 combined terminal, defn, an item or identity pc
has
is Level III,487 both been and opposed produces
therefore
steps, 472 both pain and sensation when it is "late
on the
used to get rid of physical discomfort of psycho-
track", 176
somatic origin, 457, 474 item turns on both pain
and sensation, it is a comClay Table IQ Processing, 454, 456; see also
Clay bination terminal, 177
Table Clearing most PT terminals and oppterms look
more like
cleaning deans; see E-Meter, cleaning cleans coterms than
clean terminals or opposition
clean needle, terminals when first contacted, 230
defn, responsive to instant reads only, 84 command(s),
defn, one which flows, producing no pattern or
auditor's ~ restimulates charge in pc; only way
erratic motions of smallest kind with auditor
this charge can be blown is by pc telling audi sitting looking at it
and doing nothing; not just tor, 335, 415
something that doesn't react to particular ques-
dangerous auditor misses withholds and refuses to
tion; a lovely slow flow, usually a rise, most
permit pc to execute auditing ~, 33
beautifully expressed on a Mark V at 64 sensi-
effect of accusative auditing commands, 442
tivity, 224 give them crisply and definitely and
get them exe is vital in order to null a list, 224 cuted,
501, 502
medium clean needle, defn, offers many prior and itsa
line, don't use new commands to cut, 338
latent reads, but reads instantly when a question no
auditing ~ is ever let go of until that actual ~ is
is asked, 84 answered by pc, 490, 501
Clear, defn., somebody with no "held down fives" in words
not to use in auditing commands, 439
this lifetime (see Evolution of a Science), 353
communication; see also ARC
don't try to make an OT before you make a Clear, auditing
comm cycle; see auditing comm cycle
260 auditor has to assume responsibility for all
comm
"first goal clear", state of, 112, 316 breakdowns in
session, 161, 414
state of high cause is also keyed-out Clear, 435 dirty
needle phenomena usually traced to auditor
steps to make a Clear [1963], 354 having cut pc's ~,
364, 447
test [1963], 259, 353 failure keys in by-passed charge,
417
theta clear, defn, a Case Level 2 that is exterior,
itsa isn't a comm line; it's what travels on a comm
317 line from pc to auditor, if that which
travels is
Operating Thetan and theta clear, road to, 213
saying with certainty "It IS", 370
various roads to it described, 275 compartmenting the
question, 77, 78
clearing, 316 complete list; see list, complete
altered goal wording prevents clearing, 150 condensation,
tendency of physical universe is con assembly line, 153
densation and solidification, 276
assessment for clearing intensive, 166 confidence, ability to
predict equals, 93
completing clearing, 355 confidence, auditor confidence,
importance of, 326
difficulty of clearing, 317 confront(ed)(ing),
free needles and clearing, 112 CCHs are "familiarization"
processes that permit
HGC clearing [1962] ,1 52 pc to confront control
and duplication, 43
why it works, 493 charge prevents pc from ~ time track, 290
Clearing Success Congress in Washington, 137 havingness is
proportional to pc's ability to con
coaches, coaching, coachless, front in session, 225
Coaches' Drill [1963], 272 pc who makes no gain is pc who
will not as-is, who
coachless training, use of a doll, 103 will not
confront, 36
theory coaching is not examining, 489 TA "drift up", pc's
refusal to confront, 48
TRs done solo in absence of good coaches, except time
track, unavailability, cause of, 275
TR 04,103 confusion, prior ~ to self-determined change,
116
what coaches should look for, 194 confusion, TA motion is caused
by energy contained
co-audit, co-auditor, in confusions blowing off case; ~ is
held in
ARC Break Process, 319 place by aberrated stable
data, 375
husband-wife co-auditor team, unlucky as a gen- constructive
and destructive people, difference be
eral rule, 37 tween, 408
listen style co-audit, 511, 521 control factor, asking for
missed withholds is a totally
O/W dropped on Co-Audit, 25 acceptable ~, 59
"coffee shop auditing" described, 505 coterm; see combined terminal
cognite, no ~ soon becomes overwhelm, 401 Create CDEI Scale, goals
listing using, 143
cognite, pc who doesn't cognite, cause of, 36 criminality, why
punishment doesn't cure, 439
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
critical, criticisms, dirty needle(s) (cont.)
critical thought is a symptom of overt, not the defn., a
quarter of an inch agitation of needle as an
overt itself, 469 instant response, 141
pc becomes critical of anything outside engram, it defn,
that erratic agitation of needle which covers
is an ARC break, 293 less than a quarter of an
inch of E-Meter dial
pc ~ of or angry at auditor, organizations or
and tends to be persistent, 177
people of Scientology equals missed withhold,
defn, one that jerks, tips, dances, halts, is stuck or
59 has any random action on it with auditor
sitting
there are no criticisms in absence of overts com-
looking at it doing nothing, 224
mitted earlier by pc,464, 468 ARC break
assessment often has to be done
C/S; see Case Supervisor through a dirty needle, 306
cycle of action is redefined as start-continue- can be
cleaned both with auditing (like rrlid ruds)
complete, 410 and with Routine 2, 224
causes of dirty needles, 93, 384
auditor failing to hear all pc had
to say, 335,
D 414
basic auditing not technique errors,
384, 414
"dangerous auditor"; see auditor, dangerous cut itsa,
364, 384, 414, 447
dating, cutting pc off, getting in more actions
than pc
argument with pc can group track, 293 is
allowed to answer, 419
how to date, 288 earlier item is wrong [3DXX], 57
pc's contrary data unspoken and untaken can give
incomplete lists [3GAXX] ,180, 181
you a completely wrong date, 293 missed
withholds, not withholds, 57, 59,129
use meter to date and verify date only after pc has
no-confidence induces a sort of auto-control in
been unable to come up with date, 334
session which induces a dirty needle, 93
dead horse, defn., list which even with good auditing don't
ever try to nul a list with ~, 224
failed to produce a reliable item, 203 how to get
rid of, 93, 364, 447
death: ARC broken: incapable of affinity for, reality jitters
all the time, different from a dirty read, 384
about and communication with environment, medium
dirty needle, defn, agitated throughout
347 check but with periods of no agitation
when a
death, cause of desire for, 252 read can be obtained
easily; reacts to checker's
decided and protested used to get pc easier in session,
voice, 84
447 persistent and always recurring, handling of,
129
defensive person, 321 rock slams and dirty needles, 129
definition(s), what a ~ means on an oppose list, 232
clay table work on definitions, 451 dirty read, defn, that
more or less instant response of
cycle of mis-definition, 508 needle which is
agitated by a major thought; it
wrong definitions cause stupidity or circuits, fol-
is an instant tiny (less than quarter of an inch)
lowed by overts and motivators, 489
agitation of needle and is in fact a very small
Definition Processes are not clay table processes, 505
cousin of rock slam, but is not a rock slam; it
Definitions Processes, when used as remedies are nor-
does not persist, 177
mally processed by guiding secondary style, 506 dirty
read, different from a dirty needle, 384
Definitions Processing, purpose of, 507 dirty read, rocket read is
superior in value to an RS;
demonstrate, glib students can't demonstrate, 488 RS is
superior in value to a DR; DR is superior
demos; see clay demos in value to a fall, 212
denyer obscures a part of track by implying it is not
dissemination, broad ~ depends upon technical quali
there or elsewhere (a mis-director) or should
ty, 324
not be viewed, 275 dissemination failures, 59
destructive actions are not necessarily overts, 321 dizziness,
defn, feeling of disorientation and includes
destructive people and constructive people, 408 a
spinniness, as well as an out-of-balance feel
dictionaries, 489 ing, 175
difficulty stems from no responsibility, 9 oppterm produces
dizziness or "winds of space"
Director of Processing's case handling, 357 sensation, 5
Director of Processing's view on R2 & R3 ARC break, DN; see dirty
needle
253 D of P; see Director of Processing
direct style auditing; see auditing, direct style doingness, Prehav
Scale gives degrees of ~, 173
dirty needle(s), 119, 236, 335, 364, 384, 414, 447 doll, use of a doll
in coachless training, 103
defn, agitated throughout check, making reading dope-off
[R2-12], 237
difficult; pc's attention obviously dispersed, 84 double
questioning, changing because pc changes, and
defn, a small rock slam, 129 following
pc's instructions, 74
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
DR; see dirty read E-Meter(ing) (cont.)
dramatizing pc may not be a tough pc, 36 locates charged
areas below awareness of pc,
dub-in, defn, any unknowingly created mental pic- verifies
that charge has been removed, 290,
ture that appears to have been a record of
334,416
physical universe but is in fact only an altered
missed withholds, fruitful source is poor metering,
copy of time track, 274 105
dub-in case, run ARC Processes as case is over-charged miss on
needle reaction is basis of all unsuccessful
for engrams, 293 sessions, 105
duplication, CCHs are "familiarization" processes needle
characteristics defined, 84
that permit pc to confront control and , 43 needle
reaction, defn., rise, fall, speeded rise,
Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam, 131, 135,138, speeded
fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta
142 bop or any other action, 264
demonstration of, 137 never ask ~ after pc volunteers
button, 285, 415
out rudiments, meter can go gradiently
dull in
presence of, 73, 96, 361
E perfection means only accurate
reading of needle
on instant reads, 104,105
echo invalidation; see invalidation, echo prior reads; see
prior reads
E-Meter(ing); see also needle characteristics by name reacts
on reactive mind, never on analytical mind,
ARC breaks and E-Meter; see ARC break, E-Meter 78
and reading; see also reads
body motion vs. bank's reaction, 394 ability to
read an E-Meter, 369, 402
can operate on last word (thought minor) only of if
pc is in session E-Meter will read, 96
question, whereas question (thought major) is
inability to read ~ is state of case, remedy of,
actually null, 102, 362 214
charge, how it reacts on needle and TA, 290 RIs and use
of E-Meter, 334
checking needle in rudiments checks, 84 rocket reads;
see rocket reads
cleaning cleans, 335, 415 sensitivity is vital to get
rudiments in, 91
asking pc for something that isn't there devel-
standards, 91
ops a withhold of nothing, 102,104, 335, 415
steering, 60, 63, 78
howto prevent,439 tone arm action, that which
moves only needle
never clean a clean needle, never miss a read, 105
seldom gives good TA, 369
overt acts, commonest cause of failure in run- TR
20-Reach and Withdraw on ~, 264
ning overt acts is cleaning cleans, 438 TR 21-
Reading E-Meter accurately, 265
clean needle; see clean needle emotion and misemotion include
all levels of com conflict between pc and meter, take pc's data,
plete Tone Scale except pain, 175
reason why, 335 emotionlessness, pc has to come up to
emotion on
dangerous to audit without a meter, 22 Tone Scale,
286
dating; see dating end rudiments; see rudiments, end
dependence, how it is created, 334, 416 end words of
rudiments questions; see rudiments, end
minimize dependence, 293, 415 words
dirty needle; see dirty needle energy,
dirty read; see dirty read charge is stored ~ or stored
or recreatable poten does not operate on an ARC broken pc, 96, 102,
tials of ~, 289, 290, 416
362 flow is progress of energy between two points,
16
drills must stress only meaningful and significant motion
is matter with energy in space, 330
instant reads coming at end of full question, 79 TA
motion is caused by contained in confusions
echo E-Metering, 285, 415 blowing off case, 375
end words reading by themselves, cause of, 102 will not
flow in absence of time, 330
everything reading, 402-03 engram(s), defn, those parts of time
track that con goes null on a gradient scale of misses by auditor;
tain moments of pain and unconsciousness, 274
the more misses the less the meter reads, 105
assessment, development of, 301
how to smooth out needles, 93 contains heaviest ARC
break with a thetan's en inability to clean up needle is biggest hole
in stu- vironment and other beings, 291
dent auditing, 214 contains moments when it was
necessary to have
instant reads;seeinstant reads moved and degrading
to hold a position in
invalidation, 73, 335, 415 space, 291
latent reads; see latent reads mid ruds will mush an
engram, 296
lists, needle gets stiffer on wrong way oppose; missed
withholds, do not pull until chain is flat or
needle looks looser on right way oppose, 233
engram will mush, 296
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
engram(s) (cont.) floating needle, free needle is not a stage 4
needle or
pc is stuck not just in ~ but in past identities, 50
an inverted stage 4; it is floating and free, 112
postulate sometimes lies ahead of actual ~, 349 flow(s),
running, 273, 287, 292, 299; see also R3R basic, 14,16
auditor must know basic laws and mechanics of
basic aberration is withheld flow, 16
time track and engram character and behav- is
a progress of energy between two points, 16
ior in order to run engrams, 273 running too
long on one flow is conducive to with
case level to run on engrams, 289 holds
developing, 66
later the incident is (further from basic), the
self-determined flows can be aberrative, 14
more lightly it is run, 290 withhold ~, reverse
of is "afraid to find out", 33
perceptions aren't there-wrong time or wrong Flow Process,
commands of, 15
duration or both or it's a GPM or it's false
forbidden words, 439
track, 329 free needle; see floating needle
prime source of ARC break in engram running free track,
defn., that part of time track that is free of
sessions is by-passing charge by time mis-
pain and misadventure; pc doesn't freeze up on
handling by auditor, 287 it, 274
purpose, to release charge from case, 290, 291
reasons pc can't run engrams, 329
reasons why some cannot run engrams on pcs,
G
273, 287
R3R, don't mix with earlier data on engram GAEs; see
gross auditing errors
running, 294; see also R3R gain(s),
simplified, 273 cleaning up an old session will give
all the latent
why engram running by chains is designated
gain in that session,21
Routine 3-R, 294 no gain(s),
thetan has engrams being automatically (involun-
handling of auditor or student who has trouble
tarily) created by him, 301 with an ARC
breaky pc or no gain, 58
entrapment, main method of causing aberration and lack of
TA action means no gain for pc, 325
~ is found in actions which create or confuse
occur in presence of PTPs or overts, 468, 470
time track, 277 pc who makes no gain is pc who
will not as-is,
erasure, auditing theory of charge ~, 291 who will
not confront, 36
evaluation, accidental evaluation may occur when rock
slammer is a slow-gain or non-gain case,
auditor repeats what pc said, 161, 414
185,187
evaluation, auditor never says what overt is, 464 pc gains
measured in terms of charge discharged,
evil, being at different lifetimes is good and evil, 408
325
evil, man is basically good, but reactive mind tends to pc's
gain is directly proportional to TA action, 367
force him into evil actions, 439 game, degrees of
responsibility for, 8
evil, may not be evil people, but there are people General
Overt/Withholdbefore session, 101
currently devoted to doing evil actions, 408 glib students
can't demonstrate, 488
examination, correct, is done by asking for meanings goal(s),
of words and demonstrating how the data is
abandoned item or ~ makes everything read, 403
used, 481 accidental goal finding, 154
examination, instruction and ~, raising the standard allow no
self listing of goals [R2-12], 238
of, 478 altered goal wording prevents clearing,
150
examining,coachingisnot~,489 below Level VI one is striving to
complete his
exhausted pc equals missed withhold, 59 goals, 456
eye pouches, used as an indicator in R2-12, 235 check, 246
constructive and destructive people,
depending on
their goals, 408
F don't use repeater technique any
more on lists of
goals [3GA], 121
facsimile, defn., any mental picture that is unknow- fast
goals check [3GA] ,115, 165
ingly created and part of the time track, find
agoal [R3 or 3G] ,64, 66
whether an engram, secondary, lock or pleas- finding,
designation of Routines, 262
ure moment, 274; see also mental image finding goals
[R3-21], 170
picture first goal clear; see Clear
"failed to reveal" [R3GA] ,119 formulae [3GA] ,132
fast checking on rudiments;see rudiments,fast gains, goals
and, in Model Sessions,280, 383, 399,
checking, 422, 429, 450
field auditor targets, central org and, 432 Goal Finder's Model
Session, 157
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
goal(s) (cont.) Goals Problem Mass(es) (cont.)
how a goal is checked [3G], 54 charge in GPM, what it
consists of, 349
if a goal is a real GPM it will read with great, inter-
common denominator of GPM is "no responsi
mittent, inconsistent slashes, 396 bility",
8
line plot, rule: put any item ever found on pc by curved
out of shape, cause of, 7, 213
any process on line plot; every one will add up
failing to fully clear each GPM, result of, 260
to a goal, 250 getting cases to RR on GPMs, 332
list(s), GPM item in present time constitutes a
PTP, 185
how to do [3GA] ,118 how a real goal reads, 396
length of [3GA], 92 how to restore ability of pc
to RR or RS, 250
lost, how to reconstruct [3G], 55 implant GPM,
how its goal reads, 402
pc must be warned not to read list back to him- is
full of pairs of terms and oppterms, 179
self [3GA] ,118 item from another GPM, 258
things which cause "everythingto read" on, 402
item that RSes was part of GPM and has another
listing a bum goal results in a pc's getting sick and
item in opposition to it, 212
dizzy [3GA], 92 left uncleaned gives liabilities,
261
listing, using Create CDEI Scale, 143 List L4, 308-
09
never set agoalfor apc, 463 lock valences are appended to
a real GPM 3-D
nulling by mid ruds [3GA] ,1 18 item, 7
opposition goal or wrong goal can get pc in real lock
words found and destimulated, effect on ~,
trouble [3GA], 118 493
pc's actual goals and GPMs are more aberrative and more
advanced the GPM, more careful you have to
important than implants, 366 be of the
body, 256
Prepcheck Form [3GA] ,106 non-gain or slow-gain cases
have a GPM item in
Prepchecking and goals, 201 their present time
environment, 185
presented in Problems Intensive, how to handle, one does
have wishes-to-do of his own having
201 nothing to do with ~ but only being blocked
reliable items and goals found on students, staff or
by them, 456
HGC pcs must be checked out, 246 partial anatomy of
~, identification in auditing
reliable iterns, too many found without finding
andbehavior of E-Metertowardsit, 178
pc's goal turns off a pc's rocket read or rock
pc's actual goals and ~ are more aberrative and
slam [R2-10, R2-12, R2-12A], 249 important
than implants, 366
rocket read is the read of goal or rock itself, 213 pc
who rock slams on a PT ~ item in his or her
rock, just below the rock lies pc's goal [R2-10,
immediate environment is a rock slammer, 186
R2-12, 3GAXX], 213 postulates, treat them like ~
items whether in a ~
rock slam channel, what it is, 213 or an engram
[R3R, R3N], 349
symptoms of a right goal listed wrongly, 167 reactive
mind, basis of, is actual GPMs, 493
symptoms of a right goal unlisted, 169 realization of
actions done will key out a ~, 435
things that hide a goal or make one read falsely rock and
opposition rock, basic items of ~,182
[3GA], 119 rock slam channel is pathway through
pairs of
"to be" goals line listing [3GA] ,139 items that
compose a cycle of ~ and lead to
which is an overt against Scientology, 140 rock and
goal, 212, 213
will go null if the middle ruds are out, 83 R4MTA process
withdrawn, 376
wrong goals, 404 terminals are identities in ~ producing
pain, 175
importance of repair of, 167 will key back in by
finding modifier to a goal, 4
symptoms of a wrong goal listed, 168 good indicators;
see indicators
wrong wording of item or goal [R2, R3], 257 good, is man good
or evil, 407
24 line listing for a beingness type goal, 139 GPM; see
Goals Problem Mass
Goals Problem Mass(es), grades; see levels
defn, made up of past selves or "valences", 8 grind case is
an afraid to find out case, 37
defn., black masses of the reactive mind, 175 gross
auditing errors (GAEs), 509
defn., consists of items (valences) in opposition to grouper,
defn., anything which pulls the time track
one another; any pair of these items, in opposi-
into a bunch at one or more points, 275
tion to each other, constitute a specific groupers,
bouncers and denyers are material (matter,
problem, 185 energy, space and time in the
form of effort,
application of Twenty-Ten Procedure to ~, 7 force,
mass, delusion, etc.) or command phrases
at Level VI GPMs are run out, but before that can
(statements that group, bounce or deny), 276
be achieved, one is thrust into the GPMs by guiding
secondary style; see auditing, guiding secon
effort to accomplish, 456 dary style
best locator of ~ is from goals, 53 guiding style auditing;
see auditing, guiding style
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
impingement, auditor with out TRs and no ~ gets
no
H reads, 82
implants; see also Goals Problem Mass; reliable
items
half-acknowledgement, defn., ways of keeping pc between
lives, 333
talking by giving pc feeling he is being heard
pc's actual goals and GPMs are more aberrative,
and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2, 501
366
Hand Space Mimicry; see CCH 3 inactive and lazy, how a person
becomes, 439
HAS Course curriculum and requirements [1964], incident(s),defn,
recordingofexperience,simpleor
514 complex, related by same subject,
location or
have, havingness, defn, concept of being able to people,
understood to take place in a short and
reach, 6 finite time period such as minutes
or hours or
dropped havingness equals missed withhold, 59
days, 274; see also chain
is proportional to pc's ability to confront in ses-
failure to handle time in incidents, 273
sion, 225 "grinding out", 290
rough auditing reduces havingness, 225 pc's postulates
made at time of incident contained
way not to have is to ignore, combat or withdraw
charge, 349
from, 8 unknown incident pins chains, 41
withholds cut havingness down, 6 indicator(s),
Havingness Processing, every bad indicator is precise, easily
observed and
"Look around here and find something you would
has an exact counter-action, 391
permit to appear", basic Havingness Process good
indicators [GIs] on R6, 390
using suppressor mechanism, 37 go on with routine
actions as long as GIs are pres
Model Session [1964], 422, 450 ent, 391
rudiment, 101 list of good indicators at lower levels,
445
R-3 Havingness, 280, 383 inflow and outflow, accelerated and
restrained, CDEI
Security Checking and ~, 20-10 Theory, 6 Scale
on, 16
suppression is overcome when you run ~ on a pc, inflow and
restrained inflow can be self-determined
37 actions, 14
TA action on indicates CCHs will move case, 44 insanity
eradicator, 37
Tactile Havingness is a CCH type of process, 43 in session;
see session, in
use of in 3DXX, 10 instant read(s),
withholds, ~ must be run toget benefit of pulling defn,
any change of characteristic providing it
most withholds, 6 occurs instantly, 77
HCO WW Form G3, R3GA, Fast Goals Check, 115, defn, that reaction
of the needle which occurs at
165 the precise end of any major thought
voiced
"held down fives", jammed thinking because of mis- by the
auditor, 77
understood or misapplied datums, 507 defn, read
that occurs instantly after last syllable
HGC clearing [1962] ,152 of the major thought without
lag, 78
HGC gains, what they depend on, 324 anticipated on rudiments,
113
HGCprocesses, [1962] 51,116,141, [1964] 406 clean needle is
responsive to instant read only,
hidden standard mechanism, 456 84
hidden standard, person with hidden standard won't drills must
be used which stress only meaningful
go clear, 185 and significant ~ coming at
end of full quesHQS Course, purpose of, [1964], 461
tion, 79
Hubbard Guidance Center; see HGC if you miss an instant read,
you hang pc with a
Hubbard, L. Ron, auditors who couldn't audit him, missed
withhold, 104
36 instant rudiment read, defn, 264
husband-wife co-auditor team, unlucky as a general instruction; see
training
rule, 37 intelligence quotient (or relative brightness
of individ hysterical, more hysterical pc is about getting ad-
ual) can be rocketed out of sight with HGC use
vanced processes or case gain, less strenuous
of a clay table,454,456
process administered must be, 516 intensive(s),
assessment for clearing intensive, 166
auditing sold by intensives, 153
I clean up M/W/H before ending, 60
ProblemsIntensive, 116
identification (A=A=A), most easily present when
TAamountperintensive,367
time sense is awry, 330 interest is absorbed attention
and desire to talk about
ill or misemotional before session beginning, handling it
[R3R], 301
of, 101 interest, pc interest as a method of
assessment, 325
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
invalidation, invalidates, 414
avoid use of "you" to pc, 161 J
can make wrong goal read or steal read from right
goal, 119 justice contains hidden error regarding
rightness, 322
continuing ARC break assessment after pc has cog-
justifications, list of Scientology ~, 437
nitedinvalidatespc'scognition,418 justifications,
reasons overts are overts to people is
echo invalidation, 415 justifications, 436
E-Meter dependence is created by invalidation by
auditor, 334 K
E-Meter invalidation, 335, 415
IQ; see intelligence quotient keyed-out Clear, state of high cause
is also ~, 435
IRS; see rock slam, instant key-ins, defn, those parts of time track
which con
item (It) defn, any terminal, opposition terminal tain
first moment an earher engram is restimu
combination terminal, significance or idea (but
lated 274
not a doingness, which is called "a level") It is pc
who mostly keys his bank back in, 354
appearmg on a hst denved from pc 176 knowledge, what it
is to average person, 26
characteristics of terminal, opposition termmal, Know to
Mystery Processing Check 1
combination terminal~ 177 Know to Mystery Scale,
everything above pc finds pc
charge piled up on pc, pc ceases to be capable of at
effect 286
clear thought and will reject even right items,
400
check the item, how to, [3DXX] ,12
L
complete list, in theory, just fades away and leaves
an item [3G], 55 lassitude, cause of a feeling of
lassitude, 261
dirty needle in listing 3D Criss Cross means an latent reads,
defn, reads which occur later than com
earlier item is wrong, 57 pletion of major
thought, 264
from another GPM [R2, R3], 258 prior reads and ~ are
ignored, 77
if the right item or goal on a list has been read and
steering the pc is only use of latent or random
abandoned, all its locks will begin to read like
reads, 60, 78
real items or goals [Level VI], 403 laudatory
withholds, 1
is unburdened by making represent list [R2-10,
lazyandinactive,howapersonbecomes,439
R2-12, 3GAXX], 210 level(s),
line plot, rule: put any item ever found on pc by auditing
levels of using overts [1964], 438
any process on line plot; every one will add up
auditing skills by levels [1964], 41 1
to agoal, 250 each level of auditing controls pc's
attention a
list, things which cause "everything to read", 402
little more than last, 371
opposition items, each line is an independent zig- pc will
feel accused if run above his level, 441
zag of opposition items [3DXX] ,10 reads are
bigger on higher levels, 396
reliable item; see reliable item tone arm action is higher
on higher levels, 397
rock slamming items [R3-21 ] ,172 Level 0, curriculum for,
[1964], 514
that R/Ses, what it is [R2-12], 212 Level 0, purpose and end
phenomena, 516, 517
itsa, Levels 1 to 8, state of case, 289
dirty needle and itsa; see dirty needle Level III, clay
table work is, 466
is action of pc saying, "It's a this" or "It's a that", Level
VI, drawbacks of, 433
374, 375, 498 Level VI, reads on ~, difference between,
403
isn't a comm line; it's what travels on a comm line life,
Scientology in direct application to life, 491
from pc to auditor, if that which travels is say- line,
defn, a list of found 3D items each in opposi ing with certainty "It
IS", 370 tion to the last item on that line [3DXX], 12
line, don't use metering, ARC break assessments, each
line is an independent zig-zag of opposition
dating, or incomprehensible or new commands
items, 10
to cut itsa line, 338 3GA line wording; see Routine
3GA
line, when cut, auditing ceases to work, 337 line plot, 25,
defn. ,12
Project 80-itsa line and tone arm, 351 described, 178
silent auditor invites itsa, 370 put every item ever found
on pc by any process on
slow assessment means letting pc itsa while assess-
line plot; every one will add up to a goal, 250
ing, 373 list (s), listing, defn., auditor's action in
writing down
TA action slows down when pc goes into more items
said by pc in response to a question by
charge than he can itsa easily, 374, 413
auditor, 203; see also assessment
whatsit and itsa, relation to TA, 334, 370 378
appearances [R2-12], 207
Auditing by Lists, 423
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
list(s), listing (cont.) list(s), listing (cont.)
beyond last rock slam [R2-12A], 233 random listing
[R3N], 394
by Prehav [3GA] ,163, 164 represent list, item is
unburdened by making repre
by Tiger buttons [3GA] ,147, 148 sent list [R2-10,
R2-12, 3GAXX], 210
complete list, defn, any list listed for assessment
rules,
that does not produce a dirty needle while
allow no self listing of goals [R2-12], 238
nulling or Tiger Drilling [1962] ,181
auditor has no business with significances of
discovery of, [3G], 53, 55 items [R2-1
2A], 235
in 3DXX, 17 don't Tone 40 ack items or
goals a pc gives you
rules of a complete list for R2 or R3, 241, 242
[3G], 56
dead horse is list which even with good auditing,
never force pc to list [R2-12, R3M], 255
failed for any other reason to produce a reliable
run all TA action out of listing; list at least 50
item [R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX, R3-21], 203
items beyond point tone arm became mo differentiate the list [3DXX]
,11 tionless [R2-12A], 233
difficulties [R2, R3], 255 test list both ways [R2],
233
cause of poor list [3DXX] ,17 session [3GA] ,130
getting pc to answer the auditing question source
list, 239
[R2-12], 238 to a still tone arm, what it
takes [R2, R3], 241
handling of pc who gets dopey or drowsy dur- wording
[3GA] ,1 14
ing listing and nulling [3DXX] ,10 writing
the list [R2-10, R2-1 2, 3GAXX, R3-21 ],
how ~ a wrong item can happen [R2, R3], 256
204
if right item or goal on a list has been read and
wrong way list [R2-1 2A], 234, 236
abandoned, all its locks will begin to read listen
style auditing; see auditing, listen style
like real items or goals [Level VI], 403 listen
style co-audit; see co-audit, listen style
long long lists [R2-10, R2-12], 223 Listing Prepcheck,
HCO WW R-3GA Form 1, 109
lost list, how to reconstruct, 55 List L-1, General
ARC Break Assessment, 307, 423
overlisting,dangersignof,[R2-12,3GAXX],204 List L-2,
assessment sessions, listing sessions, pre
pc who "can't quite say exactly what it is"
liminary step R3R, the ARC break for assess
[3DXX] ,10, 17 ments list, 307
right goal listed wrongly, symptoms of, 167 List L-3 and
L4, add "Have we by-passed any postu
wrong goal listed, symptoms of, 168 lates?",
349
wrong way to symptoms [R2, R3], 255 List L-3, R3R
engram running by chains, 308
goals; see goals List L4, 309, 423
handling of mid ruds [3GAXX] ,1 80 used on Routine 3N-
GPMs, all goals sessions, 308
incomplete lists [R2-12], 221 List One-the Scientology List
[R2-12], 191, 195,
dirty needles stem from incomplete lists or
202, 215
missed items [3GAXX],180 living, two conditions
of, ARC broken, not ARC
is always derived from pc [3DXX] ,10 broken, 347
is auditing [3G], 53 location, one of three methods to handle
time track,
is not Prepchecking [3GA] ,1 59 288
is slightly contrary to early auditing philosophy location, TA
change requires two locations-location
[3GA] ,160 of pc and location of mass, 49
nulling, lock(s), defn., those parts of time track which con
clean needle is vital in order to null a list
tain moments pc associateswithkey-ins, 274
[R2-10, R2-12], 224 chronically tired pc who
is not eating won't get
never null lists taken from wrong sources, just
TA for there's no as-is of locks, 434
abandon [R2-12], 232 finding and handling lock
words of GPMs, 493
nullable is a condition a list must be in in order
valences; see valences, lock
to have an item found on it [R2-10, R2-12, LRH; see
Hubbard, L. Ron
3GAXX, R3-21], 203
null the list [3DXX] ,1 1
to get a list to differentiate and null rapidly, the
M
list must be complete [3DXX] ,17
oppose,opposition, major thought, defn, complete thought
being ex
done on R/Sing items [R2-12], 221 pressed
in words by auditor, 77, 264; see also
minimize goal oppose lists [R2, R3], 258
minor thought
right and wrong oppose [R2-12], 230 E-Meter can
operate on last word (thought minor)
right way and wrong way oppose indications
only of a question, whereas the question
[R2], 231, 233 (thought major) is
actually null, 102, 362
what a dirty needle means [R2], 232 how to groove
in, 78
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
"make it", avoid using, because it's a GPM word missed withhold(s)
(cont.)
[Clay Table Processing], 455 co-audit and missed
withholds, 25
man is basically good, but reactive mind tends to command, use
"done" not "missed a withhold" in
force him into evil actions, 439 all ~
questions, 71
man, two dominant behavior patterns of, 407 commonest questions
to get ~, 60
mass(es), dangerous auditor is afraid to find out, thus caus
are released off body and out of thetan's bank in
ing~ on pc, 33
auditing, 256 dirty needle is caused by ~, 57,
59,129
as-isness of, 49 don't be reasonable about pc's
complaints, with
"bank is beefing up", sensation of increasing solid-
holds have been missed, 61
ity of massesin the mind, 175 don't have to clean
up all withholds if kept
body discolors when mass from bank is brought in
cleaned up, 61
on it, 255 help pc by guiding his attention against
needle, 63
Goals Problem Mass; see Goals Problem Mass how to audit
missed withholds, 21, 23
how a being is hung with persistent masses, 8
indicators of, 59, 66
tone arm moves because mass is changing, 48, 49
intensives, do not conclude without cleaning up ~,
master process, defn, one which ran out all other 60
processes and processing, 67 missing a withhold
or not getting all of it is sole
matter, motion is matter with energy in space, 330 source
of ARC break, 23
MD's diagnosis, cause of antipathy toward, 463 motivator
response to ~ question, how to avoid, 71
medicine, operational shock, cause of, 464 natterings, upsets,
ARC breaks, critical tirades, are
mental image picture, protest is basically responsible
restimulated but missed or partially , 26
for making ~, 301; see also facsimile never ask pc
if you've missed a withhold on him or
mest and time track, 276, 291 her with pc off a meter,
67
mest universe, intention of, 277, 417 of nothingness, 102,104,
362
meter; see E-Meter partial and missed withholds, 26
middle rudiments; see rudiments, middle pc dissatisfied, caused
by ~, 20
minor thought, defn, subsidiary thoughts expressed pcs go
groggy, lose interest and refuse to list only
by words within the major thought; they are
when session withholds are missed, 66
caused by reactivity of individual words within
poor E-Metering is most fruitful source of ~,104,
the full words; they are ignored, 77, 264; see
105
also major thought Prepchecking, don't ask for ~
while prepchecking,
E-Meter can operate on last word (thought minor) 63
only of a question, whereas question (thought
Prepcheck system, do not use in cleaning ~, 61
major) is actually null, 102, 362 pulled clean
up sessions, 21
misemotion and emotion include all levels of com- pulling ~
[Model Session], 279, 382, 421, 449
plete Tone Scale except pain, 175 rough, angry
ARC breaky session, auditor has
missed withhold(s), 20, 42, 285; see also rudiments
failed to pick up ~, 20, 58
defn, a withhold that existed, could have been
rudiment, 101
picked up and was missed, 20 R3R, don't use mid
ruds or ask for ~, 296
defn, is a should have known, 27 sessions go wrong, ask
for ~, 58, 61
defn, an undisclosed contra-survival act which has source
of all upset is ~, 105
been restimulated by another but not disclosed,
wild animal reaction, 26
58 "mistake been made" is a combination of auditor or
ARC breaks and missed withholds; see ARC pc
asserting and other denying that it is or is
breaks, missed withholds and not the goal;
it is a conflict of positive-negative
asking for ~ does not upset dictum of using no
opinion and forms a ridge impossible to dispel
O/W processes in rudiments, 60 unless
auditor asks for "mistake", 119
asking for is a totally acceptable control factor,
misunderstood, "held down fives", jammed thinking
59 because of ~ or misapplied datums, 507
auditing rundown-missed withholds, 318, 328 misunderstood word,
1st and 2nd phenomena of, 480
auditor can ask if another auditor has missed a
misunderstoodwordsand overts,471
withhold,42 mock-up(s), defn, any knowingly created
mental
by-passed charge is explanation for violence of ~,
picture that is not part of a time track, 274
285 earlier in bank the "power" of the thetan's
mock
by-passed charge is in some degree a ~, missed by
ups is greater, 256
both auditor and pc, 306, 417 Model Session; see also
session
cleaning up, don't ask for withholds, 61 assist not
done in Model Session, 505
clean up at once if auditor doesn't ask leading changes
[1962], 72, 85,101
questions, 60 Class II Model Session, 398, 428
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
Model Session (cont.)
Goal Finder's Model Session, 157 0
Levels III to VI [1964], 420, 448
R2 and R3 Model Session, 243 observation, auditor's
observation of pc, 360
R3 Model Session, 278, 381 observe, being who is something,
cannot ~ it, 50
modifier is part of oppterm so its use is dropped, 57 Opening
Procedure by Duplication (Book and Bottle),
modifier to a goal, GPM will always key back in by CCHs confused
with Op Pro by Dup, 45
finding the ~, 4 is test of endurance in duplication,
68
morale, apparent bad morale, 285 unflat, remedy for, 68
mores, each valence has its own social ~, 40 used to develop
ability to do repetitive processes,
motion, 316
is matter with energy in space, 330 Opening Procedure by Rock
Slam, R2-12, an HPA/
overt is forward ~, withhold coming after it is
HCA skill, 185
inward~,14 Operating Thetan, defn, a Case Level 1 complete
sensation of, a feeling of being in motion when
with skills rehabilitated, 317
one is not; motion includes the "winds of don't
try to make an OTbefore youmake a Clear,
space", a feeling of being blown upon, especial-
260
ly from in front of the face, 175 theta clear
and Operating Thetan, road to, 213
time is measured by ~, 330 to make an ~ one has to clear
time track, 329
motivator(s); see also overt-motivator sequence operational shock,
cause of, 464
missed withhold question, ~ response to, 71 oppose [opposition]
list; see list, oppose
persons looking for overt to explain ~, 440 opposition goal;
see goal, opposition
wrong definitions cause stupidity or circuits, fol-
opposition item; see item, opposition
lowed by overts and motivators, 489 opposition rock and
rock, two basic items of GPM,
muzzled auditing; see auditing, muzzled 182
M/W/H; see missed withhold opposition terminal(s) (oppterm), defn,
an item or
identity pc has actually opposed
(fought, been
N an enemy of) sometime in past
(or present),
176
natterings, upsets, ARC breaks, critical tirades, are GPM is
full of pairs of terms and oppterms, 179
restimulated but missed or partially missed modifier
is part of ~ so its use is dropped, 57
withholds, 26 most PT terminals and ~ look more
like coterms
natter is handled by ARC break assessments, 332 than
clean terminals or ~ when first contacted,
natter, recognize by pc's natter, or lack of previous
230
gain that pc has overts, 468 produces dizziness
or "winds of space" sensation,
natural auditor and dangerous auditor described, 32 5
needle; see E-Meter; needle characteristics by name rock
slam is response of E-Meter to conflict be
newness, urge for, is a deadly disease, 432 tween
terminals and ~,176
no-change, pc trying to prove himself right and audi- R2-12A
package must have two terminals and two
tor wrong gets no-change sessions, 323 ~,
opposing and cross opposing, 235
no-confidence induces a sort of auto-control in terminals and
~, difference between, 5, 12, 175,
session which induces a dirty needle, 93
176,177, 230, 231
no-havingness, defn., concept of not being able to ways of
asking for terminal and ~, 177
reach, 6 Op Pro by Dup; see Opening Procedure by
Duplicanot-ised and suppress used to get item to read, 447
tion
nullable, defn, condition a list must be in in order to organization,
have an item found on it, 203 against
organization, defn, against ~ or posts and
nulling, [R2-12] 206, [R2-12A] 235,defn,auditor's
protestingatorgbehaviororexistence,347
action in saying items from a list to pc and with
organization, defn, interested in org or post
noting reaction of pc by use of E-Meter [R2-10,
and willing to communicate with or about org,
R2-12, 3GAXX, R3-21], 203 347
by mid ruds [R3GA] ,118, 119 field or orgs do badly if
they are not doing one
clean needle is vital in order to null a list [R2-10,
technical thing well and not keeping people's
R2-12], 224 attention directed at it and
nothing else, 432
done in a brisk, business-like, staccato fashion OT; see
Operating Thetan
[3DXX assessment] ,1 1 other-determinism, no
responsibility for other side of
drill on new nulling procedure, [3GA Tiger Drill]
game, 8
122, [R2-12, R3-21, 3GAXX] 196 outflow, CDEI Scale on
inflow and outflow, 16
null eachlist [R3, 3G],66 outflow, compulsive ~ and obsessive
withhold are
pc is expected to be silent during ~ [3DXX] ,11
alike aberrated, 14
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
outflow, overt act is ~; withhold is restrained ~, 14 overt(s)
(cont.)
out of session; see session, out of withholds, coming after
confusion of ~ hang up
overlisting, danger sign of, 204 on track and tend to stop
pc in time, 14; see
over-restimulation, 371 also overt/withhold
overt(s); see also Security Checking; overt/withhold wrong
definitions cause stupidity or circuits, fol
defn, an act of omission or commission which lowed by
overts and motivators, 489
does the least good for the least number of overt-
motivator sequence, auditor must make a state-
dynamics or the most harm to the greatest
ment to pc and assume initiative in~,464
numberofdynamics,321;seealsoBCR overt-motivator sequence,
when somebodyhascom auditinglevelsofusingoverts [1964],438
mitted an overt, he has to claim existence of
auditor never says what the overt is for that's
motivators, 469
evaluation, 464 Overt Process: "In this lifetime what
overt have
"cleaning cleans", commonest cause of failure in
you committed?" "How have you justified it?",
running ~, 438 436
cleaning up, ask frequently, "Have I missed any
overt/withhold (O/W),
withhold on you?", 60 assist, O/W is best repetitive
process for, 99
critical thought is a symptom of overt, not the
demanding overt is not confined to just running
overt itself, 464, 469 O/W, 465
cycle of an overt, 471 don't use O/W to clean rudiments for
Prepcheck
demanding overt is not confined to just running
session, 30, 42
O/W, 465 dropped on Co-Audit, 25
depend on social mores, 40 General Overt/Withhold before
session, 101
destructive actions are not necessarily overts, 321
Itsa Processes for O/W are almost unlimited, 441
don't fail to pull the real overts or ARC break pc
justifications, running off, is further south process
in getting overts off, 468 than any earlier
version of O/W, 436
if pc can't conceive of ~, use "didn't know", 21 missed
withholds, asking for, does not upset dic
is forward motion, withhold coming after it is in-
tum of not using ~ Processes in rudiments, 60
ward motion, 14 Model Sessions and O/W, 244, 279,
382, 398, 420,
is something that harms broadly; a beneficial act is
428, 448
something that helps broadly; it can be a bene-
overwhelm(s)(ed),
ficial act to harm something that would be
consequencesof pcbeing overwhelmed,400
harmful to greater number of dynamics, 321 it is
charge that overwhelms, 401
leaving an ~ touched on case and calling it clean time
track overwhelms pc when charge present in
will cause future ARC break with auditor, 439
huge amounts, 416
misunderstood words and ~, 471 violations of auditing
cycle can bring about ~, 400
-motivator sequence; see overt-motivator sequence
motivators, looking for overt to explain motiva
tors, 440 P
no gains occur in presence of PTPs or ~, 468, 470
not knowing the full definition-misunderstanding package,
defn, always consists of two RIs that are
-overt-motivator cycle, 476 terminals and two
RIs that are oppterms
order of effectiveness in processing, 438 [R2-
12A], 234
pc ARC breaks on auditor demanding more than is pain, defn,
is composed of heat, cold, electrical, and
there or leaving an overt undisclosed, 439
combined effect of sharp hurting, 175
pc who dives into past lives when asked for ~, 440 person
could feel pain only as himself (thetan plus
persons with heavy overts on Scientology make no
body), 176
case progress, 185 terminal gives pain,
5,12,175,177
Prepchecking, 39, 62 tone scale, pcs come up to feeling
pain; that is a
ask What question after getting single specific ~
gain, 286
to expose and clean a chain of ~, 39, 89 pan-
determinism, full responsibility for both sides of
going earlier similar, 39 game, 8
working with no TA is a profitless chain, 40 past lives,
why they are forgotten, 9
reasons overts are overts, 436 pc; see preclear
responsibility for below Level IV, degree of, people, two
types of people, 407
438, 517 perceptions, no ~ in engram running, cause of,
329
rock slam is sign of overt, 129 physical universe; see mest
universe
Routine 2-12 removes unwanted valences that picture; see
facsimile
commit overts, 190 PN; see pain
running ~ raises cause level of pc, 438, 439 points, fixedness
of points and their opposition pro
why overts work, 439 duce phenomena of flows, 16
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
postulate-counter-postulate is problem, 185 preclear(s)('s) (cont.)
postulates, the pc's postulates [R3N, R3R], 349 less pc
cognites the more charge is accumulated,
practical training goes through the simple motions,
401
theory covers why one goes through the mo- lower
grades raise pc's cause level, 434
tions, 482 makes no gain, is the pc who will not as-
is, who
preclear(s)('s); see also case; BCR will not confrorlt,
36
ailing from what pc is ailing from, not from what more
hysterical pc is about getting advanced pro
auditor selects, 464 cesses or case gain, less
strenuous process ad
all pc actions have an exact auditor response, 59
ministered must be, 516
attempting toleave sessionequals M/W/H, 59 new, starting
to audit, 491; see also case super
being mass means no TA action, 49 vising, Dianetic
C/S 1 [in full index]
boiling off equals missed withhold, 59 not desirous of
being audited equals M/W/H, 59
can say whatever else they please, but must answer not
looking at auditor, don't take auditing actions,
auditing question or no auditing occurs, 490,
336
501 overwhelmed, consequences of, 400
case improving, pc becomes more independent of past
identities, pc is stuck not just in engrams but
meter, 416 in past identities, 50
charge piled up on pc, pc ceases to be capable of
postulates, 349
clear thought and will reject even right items,
protest against a question, how it is demonstrated,
400 439
chronically tired pc who is not eating won't get refusing
to talk to auditor equals M/W/H, 59
TA for there's no as-is of locks, 434
responsibility, no reason to expect any great pc
confronting ability being driven down by auditor
responsibility for his own overts below Level
unconfrontability [R2-10, R2-12], 225 IV, 438
critical, always a symptom of overts, 464 R-factor to
new pcs, 490
critical of organizations or people of Scientology rough
pc, 36
equals missed withhold, 59 R6, why pcs can't run at
once, 493
dating, pc's contrary data unspoken and untaken self-
auditing pc due to lack of auditor control, 74
can give you a completely wrong date, 293 stuck in
a past session, clean up the W/Hs, 21
demanding redress of wrongs equals M/W/Hs, 59
subjective reality on gain will not compare to TA
dissatisfied pc caused by missed withholds, 20
action, if charge by-passed, until BPC located,
doodling in clay, cause and resolutions of, 496,
368
497 telling others auditor is no good equals M/W/H,
59
dramatizing pc may not be a tough pc, 36 that quits;
see Book of Case Remedies
exhausted pc equals missed withhold, 59 "thought has
no effect on his or her bank", cause
failing to make progress equals M/W/H, 59 of, 36
feels accusedifhe is runabove hislevel,441 thrown out of
session by having responsibility
foggy at session end equals missed withhold, 59
hung on him, 414
gain is directly proportional to TA action, 367 time,
pc's regard for or attitude about time can
gains measured in terms of charge discharged, 325
make it difficult to run R3R or R3N, 330
get pc trained into what auditing cycle is and get time
track does not obey a preclear (early in audit question
or command that was asked or given ing), 274
answered, 490 tone arm conscious body-moving pc,
how to cure,
go groggy, lose interest and refuse to list only
373
when session withholds are missed, 66 trying to
prove himself right and auditor wrong,
has something to hide, wants auditor to find rudi-
gets no-change sessions, 323
ments in, 82 Type A and Type B pcs, handling of,
434
havingness is proportional to pc's ability to con- when pc
is talking and no TA, you already have an
front in session, 225 ARC break or are about to
get one, 336
ill or misemotional before session beginning, hand- who
dives into past lives when asked for overts,
ling of, 101 440
influencing agencies for pc are time track and pres-
who doesn't cognite, cause of, 36
ent time, 275 will win if run so as to obtain good
TA action, 327
in grief or apathy, cause and remedy of [R2, R3],
withdrawn or misemotional in life after Prepcheck
251 ing, cause and remedy of, 67
insufficiently cause in their daily lives cannot as-is
withhold depends utterly on pc's idea of what is
bank, 433 an overt, 40
interest and TA action tell programming is right, with
ruds out blows nothing, 18
325 pre-clearing intensive [ 1 962], 1 66
it is pc who mostly keys his bank back in, 354 predict,
confidence is ability to predict, 93
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
Prehav assessment, defn, any method of discovering a
Prepcheck(ing) (cont.)
level on scale for a given pc, 173 Withhold
System used in Prepchecking, 28
how to do "Roll Your Own" Prehav, 173,174 Zero
question(s), 34, 60
you get a wrong assessment if pc has suppressed,
list of Prepchecking Zero questions, 83
invalidated or protested a button, 173 Zeros and
Zero A questions, how to derive, 30
Prehav level, defn., any doingness or not doingness on 3DXX or
~, if no TA action shift to CCHs [1962],
scale; any word in scale itself, 173 43
3GA-listing by Prehav, 163, 164 Prepclearing, preparatory to
clearing, use of, 24
Prehav read, defn, any reaction of needle different present time,
defn, response to continuous rhythm
from its regular action for pc, occurring during
of physical universe, resulting in a hereness in
or slightly after a level has been called, 173
nowness, 276
Prehav Scale, defn, any scale giving degrees of rhythm is
source of present time, 276
doingness or not doingness, 173 thetan's continuous
presence in ~, possible expla
Prepcheck(ing), 28, 88 nation of, 276
administration of Prepchecking, 29 present time problem(s);
see also problem; rudiments
auditor fault in is going too shallow, 62 how to handle
present time problems [1 964], 468
buttons, order of, 133, 363, 446, 447 is exactly and only
what pc thinks or says it is,
CCHs run alternated with ~ [1962], 51,127 463
developed to handle auditor's difficulty in "vary- no gains
occur in presence of, 468, 470
ing the question" in pulling withholds, 28 overts,
ARC breaks and PTPs, 468; see also BCR
earlier similar, 29 person with PTP will get no graph
change, 185
goals and Prepchecking, 201 to tell pc what his PTP is and
then audit what
Goals Prepcheck Form-Routine 3GA, 106 auditor said
it was will inevitably ARC break
limitations of use of ~ and 3D Criss Cross, 52
pc, 463
listing is not Prepchecking, 159 when a GPM item exists in
PT it constitutes a ~,
Listing Prepcheck, HCO WW R-3GA Form 1, 109 185
magic phrase of Prepchecking, 29 pressure, bank solidity is a
form of ~,175
mechanics of Prepchecking, 28 prior confusion to self-
determined change, 116
middle ruds, 83, 99 prior reads, defn., reads which occur
prior to comple
missed withhold cleaning, do not use ~ system, 61
tion of major thought, 264
missed withhold, don't ask for while ~, 63
compartmenting the question, exploring ~, 77
pc withdrawn or misemotional in life after ~, problem,
defn, postulate-counter-postulate, 185; see
cause and remedy of, 67 also present time
problem
procedure [ 1 962 ], 88 Problems Intensive,
purpose of, is to set up a pc's rudiments so they goals
presented in ~ should not be given vast
will stay in during further clearing of bank, 31
importance or suppressed, 201
Q and A is a serious thing in Prepchecking, 40 pattern
for a new Problems Intensive, 116
question, target of, is a chain of withholds, 28 Recall a
Terminal and ~, alternated with R-2H, 406
repair, 67 Repetitive Prepchecking on, 116
Repetitive Prepchecking, 98, 361 what Problems Intensive
does for pc, 146
on Problems Intensive, 116 process(es),
replaces ~ by the Withhold System, 98 auditing
discipline, Auditor's Code, TRs are need repetitive rudiments,
don't use on end ruds of ~ or ed to make processes
work, 263
R3 session, 96 auditor has to be skilled on one ~
at least and
rudiments in Prepchecking, 42, 63 know all about it
before he can do two, 432
rudiments, you can get nice gains by ~ all rudi-
commands, one doesn't necessarily give every
ments, 70 auditing command the process has in
its run
rule of, always work specific incidents, 41 down,
501
Sec Checking combined with ~ [1962], 62 cycle is
selecting a ~ to be run on pc, running TA
session, when getting rudiments in avoid any O/W
action into it (if necessary) and running TA
questions, one exception, 42 action out of
it, 410
What question(s), don't only deliver "the latest" ~,
324
asked to expose and clean a chain of overts, 89
don't run a process that makes pc feel accused,
ask for M/W/Hs only after a What question is
441
null, 63 end of process [Model Session], 86,
87, 399
asking the What question, 31 flatten a process
before you change, 76
ask What question after getting single specific
master process, defn, one which ran out all other
overt, 39 processes and processing, 67
formulation of the What question, 89 remedy is an
auditing ~ designed to handle a non
testing What questions, 90 routine situation,
517
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
process(es) (cont.) Q and A (cont.)
repairing unflat processes, 67 interrupting or changing
an auditing comm cycle
routine is a standard ~, designed for best steady
before it is complete, 410
gain of pc at that level, 517 is a serious thing
in Prepchecking, 40
start of process [Model Session], 86, 399 origin of
term comes from "changing when pc
that turns something on turns it off, 126
changes", 410
processing; see auditing types: double questioning, changing
because pc
Processing Check, Know to Mystery, 1 changes, and
following pc's instructions, 74
program, programming, defn, consecutive techniques
or actions a case should have to get adequate
R
tone arm action and achieve a new plateau of
ability, 386 Reach and Withdraw on E-Meter, TR 20, 264
cases [1963], 325, 331 reactive mind,
cycle is selecting an action to be performed, per- auditor
is in absolute control of bank; it always
forming that action and completing it, 410
does what you tell it to do, 413
pc interest and TA action tell you ~ is right, 325 bank
beefing up, defn, sensation of increasing
pcs, 324 solidity of masses in the mind, 175
Project 80-itsa line and tone arm, 351 bank belongs to thetan,
not to body, 255
prompters, 512 bank is a demon for exactness; mind is not a
con
protest(s)(ed), fusion, 404
decided and ~ used to get pc easier in session, 447
basis of, is actual GPMs, 493
how pc's ~ against a question is demonstrated, composed
of timelessness, unknownness, survival,
439 78
in a conflict between pc and meter, take pc's data,
earlier in the ~ the "power" of the thetan's mock
because ~ and assert and mistake will also read
ups is greater, 256
on meter, 335 E-Meter reacts on ~, never on
analytical mind, 78
is basically responsible for making a mental image GPM,
black masses of the reactive mind, 175
picture, 301 mechanics of the reactive bank, 493
psychoanalytic patients, 517 there are valences, circuits and
machinery in ~, as
psychosomatic, Clay Table Healing used to get rid of
well as reliable items and goals, 275
physical discomfort of ~ origin, 457 read(s)(ing); see
also E-Meter
psychotics, proper handling of, 516 auditor with out TRs and
no impingement gets no
PT; see present time ~, 82
PTP; see present time problem bigger on higher levels, 396
public, if they don't hear same thing being said at dirty
read; see dirty read
least three times, they believe it is imperma-
everything reading, 402,403
nent, 432 instant reads; see instant reads
public incredulity is an accidental protection, 332 latent
reads; see latent reads
punishment is supposed to bring about inaction, 439 never
clean a clean needle and never miss a ~,105
punishment, why it doesn't work, 322, 439 on Level VI,
difference between, 403
prior reads; see prior reads
questions to handle missed meter reads,
73
Q rocket reads; see rocket reads
steering pc by needle reads, 60, 63, 78
Q and A, 74, 410 Recall Process, don't accept only "yes" as an answer,
defn., asking a question about a pc's answer, 74 95
defn, means that the exact answer to a question is release,
definition of, 338
the question, a factual principle; came to mean reliable
item(s), defn, any item that rock slams well
that auditor did what the pc did, 74 on being
found and at session end and which
defn, a failure to complete a cycle of action on a
was last item still in after assessing list; can be
preclear, 410 terminal, opposition terminal,
combination ter
ARC broken pc, never discipline or ~ with, 286
minal or significance, provided only that it was
auditor Q and A-ing is giving session control over
the item found on a list and rock slammed,
tothepc,74 176; see also combined terminal;
opposition
causes ARC breaks by by-passing charge, 283, 285,
terminal; terminal
41 9 always in pairs [R3-2 1 ] ,1 82
dangerous ~ is that action of auditor which corre- dead
horse is a list which even with good auditing,
sponds to pc's avoidance of a hot subject or
failed for any other reason to produce a reliable
item, 37 item, 203
examples of Q and A, 74, 292 E-Meter and RIs, 334
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
reliable item(s) (cont.) restimulate(s)(ed), restimulation (cont.)
goals and ~ found on students, staff or HGC pcs over-
restimulation, 371, 413
must be checked out, 246 sources of restimulation,
372
GPMs, three types of charge existed in GPMs: under-
restimulation,371
charge as an engram, charge as RIs, charge as
when prior charge is ~ but not located so that it
postulates, 349 can be blown, we get ARC
breaks, 290, 416
implant RIs, 394 Revelation Process Xl, 34
never audit an RI in any way but listing for Revelation Process
X2, commands of, 38
another RI [R2-12A], 237 review, Scientology review,
332
Oppose RIs [R2-10, R2-12], 221 R-factor to new pcs, 490
potential miscalling a reliable item [R2], 230 rhythm is
source of present time, 276
stray RI is an RI from a GPM of another goal than RI; see
reliable item
the one being worked [R2-12A], 258 right, rightness,
323
too many found without finding pc's goal turns asserted
rightness, 322, 327
off a pc's RR or RS [R2-10, R2-12, R2-12A], how to
get another less compulsive on their "right
249 ness", 323
remedy, remedies, 506; see also BCR no absolute rights or
absolute wrongs, 321
defn., something you do to get pc into condition
rehabilitating the ability to be right, 322
for routine auditing, 485 rock, 129; see also rock slam
defn, auditing process which is designed to handle just
below the rock lies pc's goal, 213
non-routine situation, 517 opposition rock and rock,
two basic items of GPM,
Remedy A, 506; see also Book of Case Remedies 182
handles immediate subject under discussion or rocket
read(s); see also rock slam
study, 507 always goes to the right with a fast
spurt which
Remedy B seeks out and handles a former subject, rapidly
decays,212
conceived to be similar to immediate subject or
how to make RRs appear on implant RIs, 394
condition, in order to clear up misunderstand-
how to restore ability of pc to RR or R/S, 250
ings in immediate subject or condition, 507; see
implant GPMs read with a long clean enthusiastic
also BCR RR, actual GPM chugs, 402
remedy for the dangerous auditor, 34 is superior in value to
an R/S; R/S is superior in
repair, case, 67 value to a DR; DR is superior in value to
a fall,
repair, general, you can get nice gains by prepcheck-
212
ing all rudiments, 70 is the read of goal or rock
itself, 213
repeating what pc says is evaluation, 161, 414 rock slam and
rocket read, relationship, 249
Repetitive Prepchecking; see Prepchecking, Repetitive
traveling rocket read [R2, R3], 257
repetitive rudiment; see rudiment, repetitive what makes
RRs and R/Ses vanish [R2-10, R2-12],
represent list, item is unburdened by making ~ 249
[R2- 10, R2-12 , 3GAXX], 210 rock slam (s) (ing); see
also rock; rocket read
responsibility, 438, defn, concept of being able to defn.,
called a rock slam as found on many pcs in
care for, to reach or to be, 8 effort to
locate rock, 129
common denominator of the Goals Problem Mass defn,
convulsion of the mind and can reflect as a
is "no responsibility", 8 convulsion of the
body, 142
determinismand degrees of ~, 8 defn, response of E-Meter
to conflict between
difficulty stems from no responsibility, 9
terminals and opposition terminals, 176
increased will unflatten Zeros, 90 defn, repetitive
slashing of needle of any width,
no great pc ~ for his own overts below Level IV,
205
438 defn, read of rock vs. opposition rock and
every
pc is thrown out of session by having ~ hung on
pair above them on the cycle of GPM; it marks
him, 414 path to rock, 213
realization that one has really done something is a
case progress marked by rock slams, 212
return of ~ and this gain is best obtained only
depend on reality level of pc, 176
by indirect approach, 438 dirty needles and R/Ses,
129
Security Checking increases responsibility, 9 Dynamic
Assessment by Rock Slam [3GA], 131,
restimulate(s)(ed), restimulation 135,137, 138
auditing selectively ~, locates charge and dis- everyone
alive rock slams on something, 178, 212
chargesit,290,335,347,416 instant rock slam, defn,
that rock slam which
mechanism of permanent ~ consists of opposing
begins at end of major thought of any item,
forces of comparable magnitude which cause a
176
balance which does not respond to current time
item, never represent it, always oppose it, 172,
and remains "timeless", 276, 416 216, 221, 237
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
rock slam(s)(ing) (cont.) Routine 2, 68, 218, 219; see also Routine
~ and/or
item that R/Ses was part of GPM andhas another
Routine 3 [avoid R2-12, R3 type processes,
item in opposition to it, 212 406]
List One, R/S, 210, 216, 220 opposition lists, right
and wrong oppose, 230
marks path of interest of pc; R/S = interest = cog- Routine
2 and/or Routine 3; see also Routine 2;
nitions, 213 Routine 3 [avoid R2-12, R3
type processes,
matching [R2-12], 236 406]
minute rock slam, 119 ARC break; see ARC break, R2 and R3
ARC
most difficult needle response to find or attain or
breaks
preserve, 176 Clear test, 259
"never R/Sing" pcs, 212 don't force the pc, 255
only package wide ones in R2-12A, 240 Drill One, 254
Opening Procedure by Rock Slam [R2-12] ,185 item from
another GPM, 258
persons who ~ on Scientology or associated items listing
difficulties, cause and remedy of, 255, 256
are security risks, 185 listing rules, 241, 242
person who ~ on Scientology or auditors can't
midrudrule,251
audit well, why, 161 minimize goal oppose lists,
258
reliable item and R/Ses; see reliable item Model
Session, 243
restoring the RR and R/S, 249, 250 pc in grief or
apathy, cause and remedy of, 251
rocket reads and R/Ses, relationship, 212, 249 rule:
completing R2 or R3 package will not turn
scale of, 212 on the RR or R/S, 249
Security Check by rock slam, 140 sad effect, 251, 252
sign of overt, 129 TA position for the list must be
motionless, 241
slash of an R/S is all of the same velocity and
traveling rocket read, 257
doesn't decay, it just ceases, 212 upsets, how
to prevent, 254
vanished, cause of, 234, 249 wrong wording of item or
goal, 257
wide ~ is a quarter of a dial ~ to a full dial ~,140 Routine
2-G, designation of R2-GPH, R2-Gl, R2-G2,
rock slam channel is pathway through pairs of items R2-
G3, R2-G4, R2-G5, 262 [avoid R2-12 type
that compose a cycle of GPM and lead to rock
processes, 406]
and goal, 176, 213 Routine 2H, ARC Breaks by
Assessment, 297
rock slammer(s), 161 lecture graphs, 343, 344
defn, preclear who rock slams on a present time Routine 2-10,
247, 249, 262, defn, R2-12 short form
GPM item in his or her immediate environment,
for beginners, 208; see also Routine 2-12 [avoid
186 R2-12 type processes, 406]
defn, one who produces a rock slam during the cease to
use Routine 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A in HGC
nulling of Scientology List on that list; persons
and Academy and on staff clearing, with two
who produce rock slam reactions on other lists
exceptions, 247
are not rock slammers, 203 target of, is fast result
in pc and greater reality for
is a slow-gain or non-gain case, 187 auditor, 213
persons who rock slam on Scientology or associa- Routine 2-12,
186; see also Routine 2-10; Routine
ted items are security risks, 185 2-12A
[avoid R2-12 type processes, 406]
skills required to accomplish a 3GAXX for ~, 189
assessments, 208
slow student is always a rock slammer, 185 what
assessment is prevented by, 203
we're probably all somewhere on List One, 218 auditor
responsibility, 219
"Roll Your Own" Prehav, 173,174 avoid R2-12, R-3 and R4 type
processes [1964],
Ron; see Hubbard, L. Ron 406
rote style auditing; see auditing, rote style basic
auditing skills needed to audit with ~,193
routine (s), defn, a standard process designed for best case
errors, points of greatest importance, 217
steady gain of pc at that level, 517 case remedy,
226
designation of routines, 262 cease to use Routine 2-
10, 2-12 and 2-12A in HGC
is for normal case advance, 485 and Academy and on
staff clearing, with two
Routine Three, Service Facsimile Clear (R3SC),
exceptions, 247
353 coaching notes, 194
slow assessment, 379 danger of, 263
steps of, 354 definitions of important terms, 203
Routine 0-A, 518 duration of process, 219
(Expanded), steps of, 520 eye pouches used as an
indicator, 235
Routine 0-B, 0-0, 518 failure to save records, 220
Routine 0-C, 519 fast step resume, 190
Routine la, 67 fatal error, 216
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
Routine 2-12 (cont.) Routine 3; see also Routine 2 and/or Routine 3
list(s)(ing), 188 [avoid R2-12, R3 type
processes, 406]
appearances, 207 case repair, 69
incomplete lists, 221 difficulties and liabilities
in a ~ process, 64
item can appear anywhere on a source list so Model
Session, 278, 381
long as 2 items do not R/S or RR, 239 Routine 3A,
repair of, 69 [avoid R3 type processes,
never force pc to list, 255 406]
never null lists taken from wrong sources, just Routine
3D, [avoid R3 type processes, 406]
abandon, 232 lock valences are appended to
a real GPM 3D item,
overlisting, danger sign of, is pc invalidating or
7
questioning items as he or she says them,
repair of, 69
204 terminal, produces a painful somatic, 5
that won't complete, 223 Routine 3DXX (3D Criss Cross),
4, 34 [avoid R3
writing the list, 204 type processes, 406]
wrong way oppose, tests for, 222 assessment, 10, 11, 17,
19
List One, the Scientology List, 191,195, 202, 215 cautions
regarding Routine 3G and ~, 57
failing to find R/Ses on List One, 220 CCHs,
Prepchecking and ~ combination, 43, 51,
never represent a rock slam item, 221 52
"never R/Sing" pcs, 212 complete list in 3DXX, 17
Opening Procedure by Rock Slam-an HPA/HCA
differentiation step in 3DXX, 11, 18
skill, 185 blows the lock valences, 18
practical drills, 193 finding terminal and oppterm, 5
removes unwanted valences that commit overts items, 25
rather than endlessly sec checking pc, 190 line,
defn, a list of found 3D items each in
rocket reads vs. R/Ses, 212 opposition to the
last item on that line, 12
target of, is packages in present time which bend
each line is an independent zig-zag of opposi
GPM out of shape and give pc PTPs and hidden
tion items, 10
standards, 213 ways to start a 3DXX line, 17
Tiger Drill for nulling by mid ruds, 196 listing on
3DXX, 17
vanished R/S or RR, 249 dirty needle in listing =
an earlier item is wrong,
when to abandon R2-12 and begin R3M, 250 57
Zero list questions or R2-12, 211 is always derived
from pc, 10
Routine 2-12A, 240, 247; see also Routine 2-10; pc who gets
dopey ordrowsy, handling of, 10
Routine 2-12 [avoid R2-12 type processes,
repairing the process, 69, 70
406] steps, 4, 55
allow no self listing of goals, 238 Routine 3G, 53 [avoid R3
type processes, 406]
ARC break always equals wrong Routine 2, hand- Routine 3GA,
92 [avoid R3 type processes, 406]
ling of, 237 Dynamic Assessment by rock slam,
131,135,138,
case repair, 237 142
ceased to be used, 247 experimental, 64
danger of, 263 goals list, 118
dope-off, 237 length of, 92
four item packages, 234 pc must be warned not to
read list back to
listing, auditor has no business with significances
himself, 118
of items, 235 Goals Prepcheck Form, 106
listing, run all TA action out of listing; list at least
HCO WW Form G3-Fast Goals Check, 115, 165
50 items beyond point TA became motionless, HCO WW R-
3GA Form 1-Listing Prepcheck, 109
233 line wording, 130, 134
list is wrong way to, indicators, 234, 236 listing, 159
never steer items, 238 bum goal results in a pc's
getting sick and dizzy,
nulling, 235 92
reliable items, you never audit an RI in any way by
Prehav, 163,164
but listing for another RI, 237 by Tiger
buttons-114 new lines for listing,
right item signs, 236 147,148
rock slam handling, 235, 236, 240 dominant rules of
Routine 3GA listing, 159
source list is what you choose to get your first list
"to be" goals line listing, 139
from or List One, 239 wording, 114
tone arm is used, 233 nulling by mid ruds, 119, 122
vanished R/S or RR, 249 scale of answering comm lags,
159
wrong item signs, 236 steps, 64
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
Routine 3GAXX, [avoid R3 type processes, 406] rudiment(s) (cont.)
assessment steps of 3GAXX, 180 missed withholds
rudiment, 101
dirty needles and incomplete lists, 180,1 81 miss on one
and the next, even if really hot, can
overlisting, danger sign of, 204 seem to be null by
reason of ARC break, 105
skills required to accomplish a for rock slam- never
ask a question about an answer in cleaning
mers, 189 any rudiment, 75
straightening up 3GAXX cases, 179 out rudiments, E-Meter
can go gradiently dull in
target of, is items on which goals lists can be com-
presence of out rudiments, 96, 361
piled and unburdening, 213 pc who has something to
hide wants auditor to
Tiger Drill for nulling by mid ruds, 196 find
rudiments in, 82
Zero A steps and purpose of processes, 210 pc with ruds
out blows nothing, 18
Routine 3M & 3N; see footnote 240 Prepchecking, rudiments in,
42, 63
Routine 3SC; see Routine Three, Service Facsimile Prepchecking
~, you can get nice gains by, 70
Clear random rudiment [Model Session], 244
Routine 3-21, 170, 182 [avoid R3 type processes, repetitive
rudiment cycle, 96, 361
406] repetitive rudiments and Repetitive
Prepchecking,
by-passed item defined, 182 361
target of, is Clear, theta clear and Operating
repetitive rudiments, don't use on end ruds of
Thetan, 213 Prepcheck or R3 session, 96
Routine 4, avoid R4 type processes, 406 room rudiment dropped
from Model Session in
Routine 4MTA has been cancelled, 376 beginning , remains
in end , 101
RR; see rocket read R2 and R3 Model Session, rudiments, mid
ruds,
R/S; see rock slam random rudiment, 244
rudiment(s); see also ARC break; missed withhold; R3 Model
Session, rudiments in, 278, 381
present time problem steer by repeated meter
reaction, 63
beginning rudiments [Model Session], 85, 398, TA
action ignored when a rudiment is used as a
428 rudiment, 76
beginning rudiments withhold question change, 72 TA
action, lots of, on auditor rud, use CCHs, 44
check(ing), 81, 82 TR 1, if it is poor, you'U miss
rudiment's outness
needle characteristics in ~ checks, 84 and
there goes your session, 96, 361
check sheet, 81 why rudiments are detested by some pcs,
284
cleaning a ~ that has already registered null gives
won't register when pc is not in session, 96
pc a M/W/H of nothingness, 102, 362 R (number); see
Routine (number), except R3R and
don't let pc use ~ to avoid body of session, 76 R6
[below]
double question is primary source of ARC breaks R3R, 294; see
also engram running
and out rudiments, 74 ARC breaks, handling of in
R3R, 293
E-Meter sensitivity is vital to get ~ in, 91 assessment
[1963], 300, 302
end of session rudiment for withholds, 27 basic problem
in starting a case, 299
end rudiments [Model Session], 86, 399, 429 causes for
failure, 294
end words of questions, checking pc on, 102, chain once
assessed must be fully run, 299
362 don't mix with earlier data on engram running,
fast checking, never say, "That still reads", 97,
294
361 don't use mid ruds or ask for M/W/Hs, 296
handling [1962], 75 interest is only absorbed attention
and a desire to
Havingness rud, 101 talk about it, 301
how to get the rudiments in, 361 it does not matter if pc
stays within this lifetime
instant read anticipated on rudiments, 113 or goes
whole track so long as assessed chain is
instant rudiment read, defn., 264 followed and a
basic eventually discovered for
Levels III to VI Model Session ~, 420, 448 it, 299
middle rudiments, 99,173 List L-3, 308
big mid ruds, 446 pc's postulates, 349
goal will go null if big mid ruds are out, 83
pc's regard for or attitude about time can make it
use of big mid ruds, 248 difficult for
auditor to run R3R or R3N, 330
Model Session, 86, 244, 279, 382, 399, 421,
significance and story content have no bearing on
449 rightness or wrongness of chain
selected, 302
prepchecking the middle rudiments, 83, 99 steps,
294
use of, 97 Preliminary Step [1963], 299
willmushanengram,296 all rules of
listing as developed in R2-12
missed withholds, asking for, does not upset dic-
apply to R3R Preliminary Step, 300
tum of using no O/W Processes in ~, 60 TA action
exists on the correct chain, 299, 300
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
R3R (cont.) service facsimile, defn, Advanced Procedure and
visible factors in R3R are: pc's interest, TA action,
Axioms definition accurate; add this: ~ is that
ability of pc to run incidents,301
computation generated by pc (not bank) to
which cases can run, 331 make self right and
others wrong, to dominate
R6, or escape domination, and enhance own sur
ARC breaks, 418 vival and injure that of others,
353, 354
auditor musts, 392 finding and running, 354
don't use Clay Table Clearing after R6 begun, 493 is
generated by pc, not the bank, 354
list of good indicators on R6, 390 keynote of clearing
a ~ is interest; if pc isn't inter
why pcs can't run at once, 493 ested in it,
assessment is wrong, 356
student's or auditor's ~ may contest
instruction,
S how to handle, 358
session(s); see also Model Session
sad effect, 251, 252 against session, defn., attention off own
case and
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC), 32, 156
talking at auditor in protest of auditor, PT
S and Ds; see Search and Discovery [in full index];
auditing, environment or Scientology, 34647
BCR auditing results are best achieved in a ~ and a
~
sanity, case level and ~, relationship to training, 327
depends upon a self-determined agreement to
Scientology, be audited, 491
against Scientology, defn, attention off ~ and auditor
is totally responsible for ~, 161, 425,
protesting ~ behavior or connections, 347
426
List One, 191, 195, 202 body of ~ [Model Session],
280, 382, 421, 449
professional attitude of, 59 cleaning up an old
session will give you all the
tradition of; see Book of Case Remedies latent
gain in that session, 21
using ~ to handle situations in life is a whole sub-
control, don't discard it by asking pc what to do,
ject in itself and it isn't auditing, 491 76
with Scientology, defn, interested in subject and end body
of session [Model Session], 280, 383,
getting it used, 347 421, 449
workability of Scientology, 425 end of session [Model
Session], 86, 245, 280, 383,
scouting, handling the time track, 288 399, 422, 450
S-C-S; see Start-Change-Stop General Overt/Withhold before
session, 101
secondaries, defn., those parts of time track which getting
the pc sessionable,491
contain misemotion based on earlier engramic go
wrong, ask for missed withholds, 61
experience, 274; see also engrams in session,
defn, willing and able to talk to the
secondary styles; see auditing, secondary styles
auditor; interested in own case, 18
Security Check(s)(ing); see also Confessional; Integ-
difficult to keep pc in session, handling of, 58
rity Processing [both in full index] if pc is
in session E-Meter will read, 96
based on "withhold", "make guilty" and "pre- pc in
session will always tell withholds, 23
vent", 1 picking up M/W/Hs keeps pcs in
session, 58
by rock slam, 140 protested and decided used to
get pc easier in
if a question doesn't promptly clear on needle
session,447
then it is part of a chain, 62 must-nots, 463
increases responsibility, 9 out of session, pc is thrown
out of session by
never leave a question unflat, 1 having
responsibility hung on him, 414
Prepchecking and ~ [1962], 62 out of session, pc with
dirty needle is a long way
run also Havingness, 6 out of session a lot of the
time, 93
Twenty-Ten; see Twenty-Ten pc attempting to leave ~
equals M/W/H, 59
unflat, remedy for, 67 preliminaries [Model Session], 243,
278, 381,
security risks, rock slammers are ~,1 85 398, 420,
428, 448
self-determined, self-determinism, Q and A, ~ without Q and
A is a smooth ~, 74
full responsibility for self, no responsibility for
rough, angry ARC breaky session, auditor has
other side of game, 8 failed to pick up missed
withholds, 58
inflow and restrained inflow can be ~ actions, 14
rudiments, don't let pc use rudiments to avoid
sensation (sen.), defn, all other uncomfortable per-
body of session, 76
ceptions than pain stemming from reactive smooth
out session [Model Session], 280, 383,
mind are called sensation; these are basically
422,449
"pressure", "motion", "dizziness", "sexual sen-
start of session [Model Session], 85, 243, 278,
sation", and "emotion and misemotion", 175
381,398,420,428,448
opposition terminal produces dizziness or "winds TA
amount per session, 367
of space" sensation, 5 tape recording sessions,
points to look for, 378
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
session(s) (cont.) suppression is overcome when you run havingness
on
with session, defn, interested in own case and will-
a pc, 37
ing to talk to auditor, 346; see also session,
suppressors, defn, impulse to forbid revelation in
in another, 37
if pc is with meter will read; if pc is partially
survival, rightness is stuff of which is made, 322
against meter will read poorly, 361 symbols, Clay Table
Clearing is a process of clearing
sexual sensation, defn, any feeling, pleasant or un-
words and symbols, 474
pleasant, commonly experienced during sexual
restimulation or action, 175
shock, operational, cause of, 464 T
shock treatment, what it does, 408
SHSBC; see Saint Hill Special Briefing Course TA; see tone arm
significance in clay table work; see clay table Tactile Havingness
is a CCH type of process, 43
significance, one of three methods to move time tape lectures are
necessary to get the meaning and
track, 287, 288 ethic of Scientology, 229
skunked, defn, list with R/Ses on it in listing that tape
recording sessions, points to look for, 378
failed to produce a reliable item, 203 technical quality,
staff morale, the unit, broad disslow assessment [R3SC], 379
semination depend basically upon ~, 324
slow assessment, example of, 373 technique,
slow-gain, no-gain cases, 185 defn, process or some action
that is done by
"social conduct", "suppressor" is often considered ~,
auditor and pc under auditor's direction, 385
37 defn, a patterned action, invariable and
unchangsocialmores, overts depend on~,40 ing, composed
of certain steps or actions
somatic(s), defn, general word for uncomfortable
calculated to bring about tone arm action and
physical perceptions coming from reactive
thus better or free a thetan, 386
mind, 175 basic auditing is necessary for ~ to
work, 385
CCHs, take a ~ or twitch or any pc reaction as an dirty
needle, its cause lies in basic auditing not in
origin by pc and call pc's attention to it, 49
technique errors, 384, 414
chronic somatics are contained in valences, 9 technology,
auditing session is 50% ~ and 50% appli
3D terminal produces a painful somatic, 5 cation,
58
source list; see list, source terminal (term.), defn, an item or
identity pc has
squirrels are Case Levels 7 or 6 dramatizing alter-is on
actually been sometime in past (or present);
Scientology instead of their track, 327 it
is "the pc's own valence" at that tirne,
Start-Change-Stop, unflat, remedy for, 68 175
start-continue-complete, cycle of action redefined combined
terminal; see combined terrninal
as , 410 GPM is full of pairs of terms and
oppterms, 179
steer, how to ~ pc by repeated meter reaction, 63, 78
identities in GPM producing pain, 175
steer, never steer items [R2-12], 238 most PT ~ and oppterms
look more like coterms
student(s)('s); see also training than clean ~ or
opposition terminals when first
auditing assignments, 431 contacted, 230
"bright" students, 488 opposition terminal; see opposition
terminal
glib students can't demonstrate, 488 Recall a Terminal
and Problems Intensive, alter
in trouble, Remedy A & B, 506, 507 nated with R-
2H, 406
quick student who somehow never applies what he R2-12A
package, 235
learns, 480 turns on pain in pc's body, it is a
~,12, 177
service facsimile may contest instruction, how to ways of
asking for ~ and oppterm, 177, 230
handle, 358 3DXX, finding terminal and oppterm,
5
slow or blows, reason for, 431, 451 theory,
slow ~, as well as slow gainer, is always a rock
checkouts must consult student's understanding,
slammer, 185 480
theory checkouts must consult student's under- checkout
system,488
standing,480 practical goes through the simple
motions, ~
stupidity, wrong definitions cause ~, 489 covers why one goes
through the motions,
"suggested" is evaluation, what it does, 119 482
suicide, cause of, 252, 517 theory coaching, defn, getting
student to define
Supervisor's remedies; see BCR all words, give all
rules, demonstrate things in
suppress and not-ised used to get item to read, 447
bulletin with his hands or bits of things, and
"suppressed" can keep a goal or invalidation, sugges-
also may include doing Clay Table Definitions
tion, mistake, assertion or M/W/H on goal from
of Scientology terms, 489
reading, 119 theta clear; see Clear, theta
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
thetan(s)('s), time track (cont.)
body vs. thetan, 255 engram running by chains and the
time track bulle continuous presence in PT, possible explanation
tins, 273, 287, 292, 299
of, 276 exceeds a trillion, trillion, trillion
years, 296
earlier in bank the "power" of thetan's mock-ups faults,
there are no faults in recording of ~; there
is greater, 256 are only snarls caused by
groupers, and unavail
engrams are being automatically created by , 301
ability and lack of perception of , 275
fight of ~ is to remain unsolid, mobile or im- free
track, that part of time track that is free of
mobile at will, and capable of decision, 277,
pain and misadventure, 274
417 grouping of time track, causes of, 293, 329
person could feel pain only as himself (thetan plus
influencing agencies for pc are ~ and PT, 275
body), 176 mechanism of, 277
things which can deteriorate thetan, 277 move a ~ by
any one of these three methods:
time track and thetan; see time track significance,
location, time, 287, 288
tries to be right and fights being wrong, 322 move
only the track; don't mix it and also move
thought, pc, 288
critical thought is a symptom of overt, not the obeys
auditor; time track does not obey a preclear
overt itself, 469 (early in auditing), 274
major thought; see major thought origin of the time track,
276
minor thought; see minor thought some parts are
permanently in a state of creation,
pc whose "thought has no effect on his or her
majority becoming created when thetan's atten
bank", cause of, 36 tion is directed to them,
276
ticks, not asking right question gives you ~, 396
unavailability, cause of, 275
Tiger Drill(ing), 122, 150, defn., series of buttons tired,
chronically tired pc who is not eating won't get
which are capable of preventing a right goal or
TA for there's no as-is of locks, 434
level from reading or making a wrong level read, tone
arm, 233
combined in an appropriate exercise, 173 action;
see tone arm action
Big Tiger Drill, 196 body motion and TA, 241, 373, 397,
443
buttons, 148 "fragile TA", 329
mid ruds (Tiger Drill), 129 listing to a still tone arm,
what it takes, 241
time, 330 motion; see tone arm action
failure to handle time in incidents, 273 moving
signals auditor not to act; TA not moving
handling time on pc's time track, 287, 288 signals
auditor to act, 373, 413
is actual but is also an apparency, 330; see also Dn
Project 80-the itsa line and tone arm, 351
55 stuck TA, cause of, 350, 419
mechanics of time, 330 time and the tone arm, 329
sense, compared to case level, 330 tone arm action; see also
tone arm
single source of aberration is time, 287 as indicator
of what to run, 44, 48
"timeless", cause of, 276 blowdown of tone arm is meter
reaction of having
tone arm and time, 325, 329, 330 found correct by-
passed charge, 346
Zero questions time limiter, 99 body motion and TA; see
body motion
timelessness, unknownness, survival, reactive mind is case
must not be run without TA action or with
composed of, 78 minimal TA action, 331, 413
time track, 273, 287, 292, 299; see also whole track cause
of, 370
defn, a very accurate record of pc's past, very energy
contained in confusions blowing off
accurately timed, very obedient to auditor, at
case, 375
least 350,000,000,000,000 years long, probably TA
change requires two locations-location of
much longer, with a scene about every 1/25 of
pc and location of mass, 49
a second, 274 TA moves because mass is
changing, 48
defn, endless record, complete with 52 per- that
which moves the tone arm down will give
ceptions, of pc's entire past, 274
tone arm action; that which moves only the
argument with pc during dating can group track,
needle seldom gives good TA, 369
293 what produces ~ and what doesn't, 375
auditor must know basic laws and mechanics of ~ CCHs
produced ~ while higher level processes did
in order to run engrams, 273, 288 not, 43
charge and the time track, 289, 416 charge and TA
action, 290
charge prevents pc from confronting ~ and sub-
without TA motion no charge is being released,
merges ~ from view, 290, 416 329, 413
creation of the time track, 275, 276, 291 continue the
process so long as you have tone arm
earlier on ~ pc had stronger postulates, 349 motion,
40, 75
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
tone arm action (cont.) training (cont.)
correct track significances run but without will level of
skill at Saint Hill, 51
not change but can deteriorate a case, 335
practical goes through the simple motions, theory
"drift down" and "drift up", 48 covers why one goes
through the motions,
how it is measured, 367 482
how often one reads and notes TA action, 443, 444 stress
basic auditing skill, 326
how to get, 324, 369, 374, 377, 397 student auditor
training [1964], 431
inhibitors of, student's or auditor's service fac may
contest in chronically tired pc who is not eating,
434 struction, how to handle, 358
less active the TA the more over-restimulation
why it fails, 359
is present (though restimulation can also be
wrong definitions cause stupidity or circuits, fol
absent), 371, 413 lowed by overts and motivators, 489
slows down as soon as pc goes into more charge X
unit, 214
than he can itsa easily, 374 training drills or
routines; see TRs
small if any when pc has a PTP, 468 TRs,
TA action has to have been prevented; it are
important, why, 266
doesn't just not occur, 370 are just learned
with no other consideration, 461
whatsit reduces TA action, 334, 370, 378 done
solo in absence of good coaches, except
when pc is talking and you're getting no TA
TRs 0-4, 103
you already have an ARC break or are about
invalid TR is one which gives a wrong impression
to get one, 336 of auditing, 80
is best index of case levels, 330 meter reading TRs, 264
itsa and whatsit, relation to TA, 334, 370, 378 must
contain correct data of auditing, 79
list to assess forTAmotion, 372 out TRs and no
impingement gets no reads,
pc interest and tell you programming is right, 82
325 processes do not work without skillfully
practiced
pc's gain is directly proportional to ~, 325, 327,
TRs, 263
367, 368 TR 0, Confronting Preclear, 266
quantity of, TR 0 (A), 0 (B), 0 (C), 0 (D) [1963], 267
amount per session and intensive, 44, 367 TR 1,
Dear Alice [1963], 268
auditor skill measured by amount of TA he can
if poor you'll miss the rudiment's outness, 96,
get, 327, 373, 413 361
greater on higher levels, 397, 504 weak TR
1, end words of rudiments reading by
lots of TA = bright pc, small TA=dullpc, 373
themselves occurs mainly in presence of
reacts on things that will give TA, 369
weak TR 1,102, 362
R3R and TA action, 299, 300 TR 2, Acknowledgements [1963],
269; see also
superior to what is run, 336 acknowledgement
time concept of pc and TA action, 325, 330 TR 3,
Duplicative Question [1963], 269
when a rudiment is used as a rudiment, ignore TA TR 4,
Preclear Originations [1963], 271
action, 76 be sure it is excellent in that you
understand
tone arm counters, use of,443 (really, no fake)
what pc is saying and
tone scale, pc comes up to degradation, up to apathy,
acknowledge it (really, so pc gets it) and
286, 419 , return pc to session, 362
Tone 40, don't ~ ack items or goals pc gives you, 56 TRs 6-9
are scrapped [1962], 79
Tone 40 8-C, CCH2, 311 truth is built by those who have the breadth
and
track; see time track balance to see also where they're
wrong, 322
training; see also Academy; student Twenty-Ten, application to
Goals Problem Mass, 7
case level and sanity, relationship to ~, 316, 327 Twenty-Ten,
for every twenty minutes of Security
clay table work in training and processing, 451
Checking run ten minutes of Havingness, 6
coachless training-use of a doll, 103 Type A and Type B pcs,
434
don't demand things student has not yet reached,
479
former training not wasted, 316 U
HGC processes and training, 324
instruction and examination: raising standard of, understand,
auditor fails to ~ what pc said or meant,
478 correct response for, 161, 414
instruction is done on gradient scale, 479 understanding, 508
instructor directs student auditor's attention unknown
incident pins chains, 41
toward Scientology body of data in order to get
unknownness, reactive mind is composed of timeless
effective auditing done, 357 ness, unknownness, survival,
78
SUBJECT INDEX- 1962/1964
"unusual solutions" is a phrase describing actions withhold(s) (cont.)
taken by auditor or case or auditing supervisor
flows, running too long on one flow is conducive
when he has not spotted the GAE; it seldom to
withholds developing, 66
resolves any case because data on which it is
havingness must be run to get benefit of having
based (observation or report) is incomplete or
pulled most withholds, 6
inaccurate, 509 how to clear withholds and missed
withholds, 23
Upper Indoc attitude makes CCHs grim, 47 knowledge to the
average person is only this: a
upset, source of all is M/W/H, 27,1 05 knowledge of his or
her withholds, 26
laudatory withholds, 1
level below withholding that an auditor
should be
V alert to in some pcs, for
these "have no with holds"
and "have done nothing", 440
valence(s), makes one feel he or she cannot reach, 6
are circuits are valences, 6 missed and partial, 26
chronic somatics and behavior patterns are con- missed
withhold;see missed withhold
tained in valences, 9 overt is forward motion,
withhold coming after it
GPM is made up of past selves or "~", 8,185 is
inward motion, 14
least desirable valences persist, 8 overts are biggest
reason why a person restrains
lock valences, 17,18 himself and withholds self
from action, 439
are appended to a real GPM 3-D item, 7 pc in session
will always tell withholds, 23, 63
no responsibility for game, for either side of game
pcs go groggy, lose interest and refuse to list only
or for a former self, 8 when session
withholds are missed, 66
Routine 2-12 removes unwanted ~ that commit pc stuck in a
past session, clean up the ~, 21
overts rather than endlessly sec checking pc,
Prepchecking was developed to handle auditor's
190 difficulty in "varying the question" in
pulling
withholds, each ~ has its own social mores, 40
withholds, 28
V unit Class 0, first phase, 227 recurring, cause of, 41
restrained outflow is ~,14
reverse of ~ flow is "afraid to find
out", 33
W Security Check based on withhold,
make guilty
and prevent, 1
What question(s), Prepchecking; see Prepchecking, since last
session,42
What question suppressors and ~ are opposite, 37
whatsit and itsa, relation to TA, 334, 370, 378 Withhold System,
whole track, 41; see also time track add "appear, not appear"
after "all" in ~, 41
occlusion, cause and remedy of, 9 difficulty, what, when,
all, who, 23, 24
R3R, pc going whole track, 299 don't ask it on any late
incidents, 89
winds of space, defn, pc is getting his or her face
Prepchecking uses the Withhold System, 28
pushed in, 65 Repetitive Prepchecking replaces
Prepchecking by
defn., feeling of being blown upon, especially from
the Withhold System, 98
in front of the face, 175 W, X, Y and Z units, 227-28
withdrawn, pc looking ~ after Prepchecking, cause
and remedy of, 67
withheld flow, basic aberration is ~,16 Z
withhold(s), defn., an undisclosed contra-survival act,
58 Zero list questions or R2-12, 211
beginning rudiments withhold question, 60, 72 Zero
question(s)
chain behaves exactly like any chain, 28 don't forget
"guilty" in Zero questions, 40
cleaning a clean develops a "withhold of nothing"~
Prepcheck(ing) Zero question 34 60
335, 415 list of Prepchecking Zero questions
83
coming after confusion of overt, hang up on track time
limiter 99
and tend to stop pc in time, 14 Zeros and Zero A
questions, how to derive, 30
compulsive outflow and obsessive withhold are Zeros,
responsibilityincreased will unflatten ~ 90
alike aberrated, 14
depends utterly on pc's idea of what is an overt,
40 Numerals
dirty needle is caused by M/W/Hs, not ~, 59
don't have to clean up all withholds if missed with
holds kept cleaned up, 61 3D; 3GA; etc.; see Routine 3D;
Routine 3GA; etc.
end of session rudiments for ~, 27 8-C, one of HGC allowed
processes [1964], 406
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF TITLES
Academy Curriculum-How to Teach Clay Table Work Covering Clay Table
Clearing
Auditing and Routine 2 227 in Detail 456
Academy Taught Processes OEC Vol 4-339 Clay Table Work in Training
and Processing 451
Account of Congress Goal 137 Clean Hands Clearance Check OEC Vol
5-358
Adequate Tone Arm Action 367 Clear & OT 260
Analysing Auditing-How to Get TA 377 Clearing OEC Vol 4-553
ARC Break Assessments (5 July 63) 306 Clearing-Free Needles 112
ARCBreakAssessments(11 Aug.63) 338 ClearingSuccessCongressLectures
136
ARC Breaks by Assessment-Routine 2H 297 Clearing-Why It Works-How It
Is Necessary 493
ARC Breaks-Missed Withholds 58 Coachless Training-Use of a Doll 103
ARC Process 95 Co-Audit & Missed Withholds 25
Arrangement of the Academy, An Co-Audit ARC Break Process 319
OEC Vol 4-327 CrashProgramme OEC Vol. 4- 26
Assists in Scientology see footnote Vol Ill-264 Current Auditing 239
Auditing Allowed 104 Current Planning OEC Vol 4-344
Auditing Assignments 431 Curriculum Change OEC Vol 4-424
Auditing by Lists 423 Curriculum for Level 0-HAS 514
Auditing-Rudiments Check Sheet 81 Definition of Release 338
Auditing Rundown-Missed Withholds- DefinitionProcesses 505
To Be Run in Xl Unit 318, 328 Determining What to Run 48
Auditing Skills 411 Diagrams for LRH Lectures to the SHSBC on
Auditor Failure to Understand 161 25 July, 7 & 8 August, 1963 see-
339
Authorized Processes 141 Dirty Needles 384
Bad "Auditor", The 32 Dirty Needles-How to Smooth Out Needles 93
Basic Auditing, Technique, Case Analysis Don't Force the Pc-R2-R3
255
-A New Triangle 385 Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam-3GA 135,
138
Book of Case Remedies, The 495 E-Meter Errors-Communication Cycle Error
334
Bulletin Changes 101 E-Meter Instant Reads 77
Case Analysis-Health Research 388 E-Meter Reads-Prepchecking-
HowMeters
Case Repair 67 Get Invalidated 73
Case Supervisor 395 E-Meter Standards 91
Cause of ARC Breaks 281 Engram Running by Chains-Routine 3R
CCH Answers 126 -Bulletins 1, 2, 3 & 4 273, 287, 292, 299
CCHs Again-When to Use the CCHs 43 Everything Reading-Meter 402
CCHs-Auditing Attitude 45 Field Auditor Targets see footnote-435
CCHs-Purpose 50 Flow Process 14
CCHs Rewritten 310 Flows, Basic 16
Central Org and Field Auditor Targets 432 Getting the Pc Sessionable
491
Certificate and Classification Changes Goal Finder's Model Session
157
-Everyone Classified OEC Vol 4-360 Goals & Prepchecking 201
Change of Organization Targets Goals Check 246
-Project 80 OEC Vol 2- 95 Goals Prepcheck Form-Routine 3GA
106
Checking Needle in Rudiments Checks 84 Good Indicators at Lower
Levels 445
Classification of Auditors-Class II & GPMs-Experimental Process
Withdrawn 376
Goals OEC Vol 4-340 Health Research-Case Analysis 388
Class II Model Session 398, 428 HGC Allowed Processes 406
Clay Table Clearing (9 Sept. 64) 475 HGC Clearing 152
Clay Table Clearing (27 Sept. 64) 483 How It Feels to Go Clear 128
Clay Table Data 490 How to Clear Withholds and Missed Withholds 23
Clay Table Healing 472 How to Do an ARC Break Assessment 345
Clay Table Label Goofs 509 How to Get TA-Analysing Auditing 377
Clay Table Levels 466 How to Get Tone Arm Action 369
Clay Table, More Goofs 476 How to Study Scientology
Clay Table Use 487 seefootnote Vol III-426
How to Teach Auditing and Routine 2- Q and A (24 May 62) 74
Academy Curriculum 227 Q and A (7 Apr. 64) 410
HQS Course 461 Recommended Processes HGC 51
Indicators-Part One: Good Indicators 390 Repetitive Prepchecking
98
Instant Reads 113 Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive
Instructing in Scientology Auditing- Prepchecking 361
Instructor's Task-D of P's Case Handling 357 Repetitive
Rudiments-How to Get the
Instruction & Examination: Raising the Rudiments In 96
Standard of 478 Responsibility Again 8
Instructor's Stable Data OEC Vol 4-161 Rock Slams and Dirty Needles
129
Itsa Line and Tone Arm, The-Project 80 351 "Roll Your Own" Prehav 173
Justifications 436 Routine Three SC 353
Laudatory Withholds 1 Routine Two-Twelve-Opening Procedure
Lecture Graphs 339 by Rock Slam-An HPA/HCA Skill 185
Listen Style Auditing 511 Routine 0-A(Expanded) 520
List One-The Scientology List 191, 195, 202 Routine 2 & 3 Model
Session 243
Meter-Everything Reading 402 Routine 2-G-Original Routine 2, 3GA, 2-
10,
Meter Level Warning-How to Kill a Pc in 2-12, 2-12A and Others
Specially Adapted
Level 5 394 -Goals Finding-Designation of Routines 262
Meter Reading TRs 264 Routine 2H-ARC Breaks by Assessment 297
Meter Reads, Size of 396 Routine 2-Opposition Lists-Right and
Missed Withholds 20 Wrong Oppose 230
Missed Withholds, Asking About 71 Routine 2-Routine 3-ARC Breaks,
Model Session Change 72 Handling of 251
Model Session, Class II 398, 428 Routine 2-Simplified 233
Model Session-Levels III to VI 420, 448 Routine 2-10, 2-12, 2-1 2A
247
Model Session Revised 85 Routine 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A-Vanished RS
Modernized Training Drills Using Permissive or RR 249
Coaching 266 Routine 2-12 OEC Vol 4-563
More Clay Table Clearing Goofs 496 Routine 2-12-List One-Add to List
One
More Justifications 437 Issue Three 215
More on O/Ws 441 Routine 2-12-List One-Issue One-The
New Triangle, A-Basic Auditing, Technique, Scientology List
191
Case Analysis 385 Routine 2-12-List One-Issue Two-The
Order of Prepcheck Buttons 133 Scientology List 195
Org Technical-HGC Processes and Training 324 Routine 2-12-List One-
Issue Three-The
Overts-Order of Effectiveness in Processing 438 Scientology List
202
Overts, What Lies Behind Them? 471 Routines 2-12 & 2-10-Case Errors-
Points of
Overwhelming the Pc 400 Greatest Importance 217
Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Routines 2-12, 3-21 and
3GAXX-Tiger Drill
Potential Trouble Sources OEC Vol 1-517 for Nulling by Mid
Ruds 196
Pre-Clearing Intensive 166 Routine 3-Engram Running by Chains-
Prepcheck Buttons 363,446 Bulletin 3-Routine 3-R 292
Prepchecking(l Mar. 62) 28 Routine 3G (Experimental) 53
Prepchecking (24 June 62) 88 Routine 3GA (Experimental) 64
Prepchecking and Sec Checking 62 Routine 3GA-Goals-Nulling by Mid
Ruds 118
Prepchecking Data-When to Do a What 39 Routine 3GA-HCO WW R-3GA Form
1-
Prepchecking-How Meters Get Invalidated Listing Prepcheck
109
-E-Meter Reads 73 Routine 3GA-Listing 159
Prepchecking the Middle Rudiments 83 Routine 3GA-ListingWording 114
Problems Intensive Use 146 Routine 3GA-Nulling Drills for Nulling by
Processes 156 Mid Ruds 122
Project 80-Change of Organization Routine 3R-Bulletin 4-Preliminary
Step 299
Targets OEC Vol 2- 95 Routine 3-R-3 Model Session 278, 381
Project 80-The Itsa Line and Tone Arm 351 Routine 3-21 182
PTPs, Overts and ARC Breaks 468 Routine 3-21-The Twenty-One Steps-
Public Project One OEC Vol 2- 93 Finding Goals 170
Rudiments Checking 82 Training-Classes of Auditors OEC Vol 4-315
Rudiments Check Sheet-Auditing 81 Training Drills Must Be Correct
79
Rudiments, Repetitive or Fast see footnote-113 Training-Saint Hill
Special
Rundown on Routine 3GA 92 Briefing Course-Sumrnary of
Running CCHs 127 Subjects by Units OEC Vol 4-423
R2-R3-Important Data-Don't Force the Pc 255 Training-Session
Cancellation-Auditing
R2-R3-Listing Rules 241 Section OEC Vol 4-313
R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX-Data, The Zero A Training-X Unit 214
Steps and Purpose of Processes 210 Two Types of People 407
R2-12-Practical Drills 193 Use of a Doll-Coachless Training 103
R2-12-The Fatal Error 216 Use of the Big Middle Rudiments 248
R3GA-HCO WW Form G3-Fast Goals Check 115 Valid Processes 145
R3GA-HCO WW Form G3, Revised-Fast V Unit OEC Vol 4-427
Goals Check 165 V Unit-New Students-Saint Hill Special
R3 R-R3N-The Preclear's Postulates 349 Briefing Course OEC Vol
4-421
R3SC Slow Assessment 379 When to Do a What-Prepchecking Data 39
SaintHill Staff Course Lectures 393 When You Need Reassurance 149
Scientology Review 332 Withholds, Missed and Partial 26
Scientology Training-Technical Workability of Scientology, The
425
Studies OEC Vol 4-342 Wrong Goals, Importance of Repair of
167
Scientology 0-Processes 516 You Can Be Right 321
Security Checking-Twenty-Ten Theory 6 2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 and Routine
2-10-
Security Checks Again 140 Modern Assessment 203
SessionMust-Nots 463 3DCriss Cross 4
Smooth HGC 25 Hour Intensive, A 116 3D Criss Cross-Assessment Tips
17
Somatics-How to Tell Terminals and 3D Criss Cross Items 25
Opposition Terminals 175 3D Criss Cross-Method of Assessment
10
Styles of Auditing 498 3DXX Flows Assessment 19
Summary of Classification and Gradation and 3GA-Dynamic Assessment
by RockSlam 135,138
Certification OEC Vol 4-373 3GA-Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam-
Suppressors 36 Dynamic Assessment Tip 131
TA Counters, Use of 443 3GA-Expanded Line Wording 134
Tape Coverage of New Technology 365 3GA-Line Wording 130
Technical Summary-The Required Skills of 3GA-Listing by Prehav
163
Processing and Why, A 314 3GA-Listing by Tiger Buttons-114 New
Theory Check-out Data 488 Lines for Listing 147
Tiger Drilling 150 3GA-Tips on Dynamic Assessment-Rules of
Time and the Tone Arm 329 Thumb 142
Time Track and Engram Running by Chains, 3GA-To Be Goals Line
Listing 139
The-Bulletin 1 273 3GAXX-Dirty Needles and Incomplete Lists-
Time Track and Engram Running by Chains, How to Assess
180
The-Bulletin 2-Handling the Time Track 287 3GAXX-Straightening up 3GAXX
Cases 179
Tone Arm Action 413 40-Line List on a Doingness Goal, A 143