No matching fragments found in this document.
170 HCOB 19 NOV 63 R3 MODEL SESSION REVISED (CANCELLED BY HCOB 20 APR 64) (TV5 p. 381-3, Not in New Tech Vols) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 19 NOVEMBER AD13 (CANCELLED - see HCO B 20 Apr 64 Old Tech Volume V p. 420) 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 cancelled 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, favoring 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 c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 171 TAL 21 NOV 63 DATA TAKEN FROM RECENT LRH LECTURE (Not in either set of tech vols, previously considered confiential, not in NTV because it isn't an HCOB) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex TECHNICAL ADVISE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 21, 1963 Franchise Field Orgs. Info DATA TAKEN FROM RECENT LRH LECTURE The bank is composed of things. Thing that have mass. These things are GPMs, Reliable Items, Locks on GPMs and Items, Implants, Implant Reliable Items, Locks on Implants and Implant Items, and goals of the thetan with or without Items and GPMs attached. A GPM has mass, actual mass. It has density, weight and size. It can be measured. A Reliable Item has mass, and size. Implants, Locks, and Actual Goals of the thetan have mass. This mass is caused by by the suppression of the things by the thetan. Only non-implant GPMs and RIs have any aberative value on the thetan. The others are merely confusion factors. The bank is composed of these masses and nothing else. When a GPM or RI or RIs or GPMs are pulled out of line by restimulation, and brought into present time, they impinge upon the body. When this happens in auditing we say the pc has the "creak"; when this happens in life the doctors say "he has an incurable case of lumbosis". When one of these masses is restimulated out of line, the thetan then has a mass bearing down on him. A large, ugly, heavy, black mass. Mass that brings pressure against his body. Mass that tries to inhabit the same space the thetan is inhabiting with his body. And when two or more such masses may get restimulated - OW! Restimulation of these masses all the time in life. Auditing is handling these masses all the time - no matter what level of auditing it is! When you are having a pc simply talk about his like and livingness (as with R1C), or you are doing R2C Slow Assessment, or you are doing R3SC, or an R4 Case Analysis - any one of these - you are handling the masses of the bank - GPMs, RIs, etc. The pc is looking at these masses no matter what you are running. R4M2 is the only technology which as-ises or gets rid of these masses on the pc in any combination. Not only could a pc get the "creak" but the "croak". Now, since the bank has it's own snarled up ares in it, from life restimulation, already, any auditor is going to make errors running R4M2, when he runs into an already snarled up area of the bank. If the auditor is trained in R4M2, he will know how to unsnarle the bank, and correct his error. But the auditor who is not trained in R4M2, does not know how to unsnarle an already snarled bank, and who attempts to run R4M2, will run into a snarled area, make mistakes and these masses will fall in on the preclear. Result, pc with the "croak". (Good way to make MDs rich perhaps). So the point is: no matter what you are doing with the pc, no matter what auditing technique you are using, you are handling and having the pc look at (itsa) the masses called GPMs, RIs, etc. And as long as you don't try to run these masses out (if you are not trained in R4M2) but run R1, R2, or R3 techniques, your pc will get better and better and won't "croak". Stick to auditing levels I, II, III until you have been trained in R4M2. You'll get plenty of charge off, and make keyed-out clears. And the pcs will be happy. Another point is that a pc cannot be run on R4M2 unless he knows what a GPM, an RI, etc, is anyway. R4M2 is for educated pcs. OTs are made with R4M2 - when run right. Dead Thetans can be made with R4M2 - run wrong. Issued by: JOSEPH BREEDEN HCO Franchise Secretary WW for L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr:jr Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 173 HCOB 25 NOV 63 DIRTY NEEDLES (TV5 p. 384, NTV VII p. 305-6) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 25 NOVEMBER 1963 Central Orgs Franchise DIRTY NEEDLE 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 (L1) 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 c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [The copy in the New Tech Volumes has included with it, on page 347, a handwritten page which contains the above paragraph that begins with "An auditor whose Basic Auditing"] ================== 174 HCOPL 26 NOV 63 CERTIFICATE AND CLASS CHANGES, EVERYONE CLASSIFIED (OEC p. 360-2 , NTV VII p. 348-51) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 NOVEMBER 1963 General Release BPI MA CERTIFICATE AND CLASSIFICATION CHANGES EVERYONE CLASSIFIED (Subject to last paragraph this Policy Letter changes all earlier Certificate Classification HCO Policy Letters, as of February 15, 1964.) Acceptance, requested change or objection to this plan should be airmailed to me at Saint Hill so that any necessary amendments can be issued before the effective date. If objections are minimal and acceptance general, this plan goes into full effect February 15, 1964, without further announcement and will remain the stable gauge of all training, processing, certifying and classification in the future. It is only possible to formulate this now that technology to OT is complete. Signalizing the discovery and refinement of all levels of processing up to and including the highest targets set in Scientology research, the following classification schedule has been developed. It is evident that 13 years of research developed many processes and styles of auditing and that these are all useful and necessary to the successful progress of cases. To open the road to everyone, it is necessary to have a precisely mapped course of progress. Experience shows that preclears entering too high into processes without adequate processing and training background at lower levels will fail. Technical data now makes it evident that a person not trained to run high level OT processes cannot receive successful case improvement on them and that it is dangerous to run an uneducated pc at high levels. This alone makes classification of preclears as well as auditors necessary. Even at lower levels it will be found that preclears, lacking training, do not advance well. Further it is economical to co-audit to higher levels. Therefore, without disturbing private or HGC processing commitments and yet placing these as well into these classifications for the protection of the preclear and auditor alike, the following rules are adopted and have the full force of policy. Effective February 15, 1964, auditors and preclears violating these policies will be subject to Committees of Evidence. 1. NO PRECLEAR MAY BE AUDITED ABOVE HIS OR HER CLASS. 2. NO AUDITOR MAY USE PROCESSES ON ANYONE ABOVE HIS OR HER CLASS. 3. A PRECLEAR MAY BE PROCESSED WITH THE PROCESSES OF HIS OR HER CLASS OR WITH THE PROCESSES OF ANY LESSER CLASS. 4. AN AUDITOR MAY USE THE PROCESSES OF HIS OR HER CLASS OR ANY LESSER CLASS, BUT MAY NOT USE ON ANY PARTICULAR PRECLEAR ANY PROCESS ABOVE THAT PRECLEAR'S CLASS REGARDLESS OF THE AUDITOR'S CLASSIFICATION. Any HUBBARD CERTIFIED AUDITOR or HUBBARD PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR who holds the actual certificate may train any person to the level of HUBBARD APPRENTICE SCIENTOLOGIST and may further train to Class I and by application to the nearest Central Organization may have the person he has trained certified or classified, for which application forms and certificates will be furnished by Central Organizations. A full Classification Chart will be published from time to time giving the requirements and processes of every level and concise text books and answer sheets are in preparation for every class. But absence of texts shall not preclude training or classifying so long as the materials are communicated, at least until such time as texts are complete and available. It readily will be seen that stress is being placed on co-audit at every class level. While no objection will be made to private pcs or HGC pcs, the above rules apply as to what the pc may be run on and a pc who fails to study for and attain his next classification levels will not be able to be processed at higher levels. Technical surveys demand these measures for the safety of preclears. Furthermore, training is far cheaper than processing in the long run. It will be found that auditing skill varies even within a class. It is true that an auditor receives no better processing than he gives if only for the reason that no one wants to co-audit with him or her when the skill is low. Therefore there is an incentive to be a very good auditor if only to receive good processing at any class level. These measures are dictated by a desire to have everyone make it and to leave a precisely marked roadway from the lowest to highest levels. It will also be found that auditors disseminate and purely preclears seldom do. A great many recent instances are to hand which not only demonstrate the impossibility of attaining the highest levels without training but also demonstrate the way cases are barred out at the lower levels through lack of training and orderly forward programming up through the levels. The only case barriers now are failures to have experienced certain processes at lower levels which reduced the confusion of the environment, hidden standards, etc. For instance you cannot pull missed withholds on a preclear who has no concept of communication much less the definition of missed withholds. Unless we take this step and adopt classification for preclears as well as auditors, we will find ourselves continuously losing people off the road and halting our forward advance. The general Classification Chart Issue One is as follows: Class Process Types Certificate 0 Listen Style HAS I Listen Style, HAS Classed Assist s R-1-C Principles of ARC, Dynamics II Repetitive Processes, HCA CCHs, Straight Wire, Tone 40 and Formal Auditing Axioms O/W III Prepchecking, Metered Processes, HPA Assessing Old "R2" and "R2H" IV Service Facsimiles, HCS ARC Break Assessments, Programming, Missed W/Hs V Implants, HAA Engrams, Whole Track, Whole Track Case Analysis VI OT Processes HSS Own GPMs Old R3 and R4 Processes VII Old Route One and HGA Other Drills The certificate schedule HCO Policy Letter of August 12, 1963, is cancelled. The certificate Hubbard Book Auditor is withdrawn. The certificates Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist, Hubbard Clearing Scientologist and Hubbard Advanced Auditor are reinstated. HCA and HPA are both given international standing but now are different classes. The rules of processing apply to CLASS not to certificate. A certificate may have almost any lower class stamped on it. It is the classification not the certificate that permits use of processes or being run on processes. While under actual training for the next class a preclear may be run on those processes. But to be under training for the next class one must have been classified for the immediately preceding class. One cannot enter training for the next class, regardless of the certificate held, unless classed for the earlier class. Each class has its theory, practical and auditing section. Each process has its Basic Auditing, Technique and Case analysis for that class. It is envisioned that training courses be brief and precise and require exact levels of attainment as to theory, practical and auditing requirements. Every effort is being made to handily assemble this data for each class, although all of it already exists in various forms such as books, bulletins and tapes. A more expansive Classification Chart is nearing completion. Stress in any course is 50% on auditing, 50% on case gain. It is not expected that a person will be allowed into the next class until the processes of the previous class have been flattened on him or her. Maximal attention will be paid in the enforcement of this policy to circumstances surrounding persons who have long been in Dianetics and Scientology. For these a special class is being created saluting their long presence in Dianetics and Scientology and permitting the use of processing as auditors and preclears up to a reasonable class level in keeping with their experience, successes and case advance, the only proviso being that actual case advance has been obtained and that their cases are not impeded by having failed to benefit from a certain lower level. Classification changes and upgrades will not, however, be attempted above the Class IV of the above chart and any Class IV now awarded may be upgraded in special cases only to Class V. No classification for Class VI is now obtainable except by training and no actual GPMs may be run by any auditor until the full technology is released and re-classification is earned. This is due to the numerous upsets at this level (VI). Classes V, VI and VII may only be awarded at Saint Hill. Classes O to IV inclusive may be awarded by Central Organizations. Classes O to I may be awarded by HCAs or above by application for, not of rights to award, but for certificate and class to HCOs of Central Organizations. The right to award HAS and Classes O and I are inherent in holding a valid HCA or HPA certificate. Note: If any pre-1960 auditor feels confused about his class, he or she need only honestly answer the question, "What processes do I do very successfully and get good results with and do I succeed on myself as a case?" and that will serve as a good gauge of what class that auditor should have in order to go forward on the charted course to OT with maximum gain and minimal upset. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Amended by HCO P/L 11 December 1963, Classification for Everyone, later in this volume] ================== 175 HCOB 26 NOV 63 A NEW TRIANGLE, BASIC AUDITING, TECHNIQUE, CASE ANALYSIS (TV5 p. 385-7, NTV VII p. 352-4) 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 c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 176 HCOPL 4 DEC 63 ORG STAFF W/H CHECKS (OEC V5 p 228) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 DECEMBER 1963 CenOCon ORG STAFF W/H CHECKS (Cancels earlier Poi Ltrs on Missed W/H Checks) All Central Org and City Office Staff Members must be given a W/H session each week, particularly execs and staff auditors. By new Classification Chart, only general O/W may be run at Level II, and Itsa on the org below that level. The D of P is responsible under guidance of HCO Area Sec. As these sessions are longer, possibly an hour or so, Co-audit assignment and a chit for it should be arranged. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 177 HCOPL 6 DEC 63 ORG PROGRAMING (OEC V4 p 363) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 DECEMBER 1963 HCO Sees Assoc Sees URGENT ORG PROGRAMMING HCO Poi Ltr of 26th November 1963 and the tape of 3 December 1963 outline a new departure and if handled well prosperity for Central Orgs. The remaining two tapes of this week, that of 4 December 1963 and 5 December 1963 are illuminative of technical. The Association or Organization Secretary should play these three tapes and take up the Poi Ltr of 26 November 1963 with all staff, using more than one period, and discuss and examine these points until certain they are understood. Doing this should give the necessary promotional and technical data and programming necessary to carry organizations forward with higher impetus. It is possible that course costs will be changed. Any suggestions for this will be appreciated. Reports of the conduct and results of the staff meetings above should be reported to me directly. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 178 HCOIL 10 DEC 63 THE DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT, THE TRUE STORY OF SCIENTOLOGY (NTV VII p. 356-8, not in old tech volumes, probably because it is not an HCOB) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex MA BPI HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 10 DECEMBER 1963 SCIENTOLOGY ZERO THE DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT THE TRUE STORY OF SCIENTOLOGY The true story of Scientology is simple, concise and direct. It is quickly told: 1. A Doctor of Philosophy developed a philosophy about life and death; 2. People find it interesting; 3. People find it works; 4. People pass it along to others; 5. It grows. When we examine this extremely accurate and very brief account we see that there must be amongst us some very disturbing elements for anything else to be believed about Scientology. These disturbing elements are the Merchants of Chaos. They deal in confusion and upset. Their daily bread is made by creating chaos. If chaos were to lessen, so would their incomes. The politician, the reporter, the medico, the drug manufacturer, the militarist and arms manufacturer, the police and the undertaker, to name the leaders of the list, fatten only upon "the dangerous environment." Even individuals and family members can be Merchants of Chaos. It is to their interest to make the environment seem as threatening as possible for only then can they profit. Their incomes, force and power rise in direct ratio to the amount of threat they can inject into the surroundings of the people. With that threat they can extort revenue, appropriations, heightened circulations and recompense without question. These are the Merchants of Chaos. If they did not generate it and buy and sell it, they would, they suppose, be poor. For instance, we speak loosely of "good press." Is there any such thing today? Look over a newspaper. Is there anything good on the front page? Rather there is murder and sudden death, disagreement and catastrophe. And even that, bad as it is, is sensationalized to make it seem worse. This is the coldblooded manufacture of "a dangerous environment." People do not need this news and if they did they need the facts, not the upset. But if you hit a person hard enough he can be made to give up money. That's the basic formula of extortion. That's the way papers are sold. The impact makes them stick. A paper has to have chaos and confusion. A "news story" has to have "conflict" they say. So there is no good press. There is only bad press about everything. To yearn for "good press" is foolhardy in a society where the Merchants of Chaos reign. Look what has to be done to the true story of Scientology in order to "make it a news story" by modern press standards. Conflict must be injected where there is none. Therefore the press has to dream up upset and conflict. Let us take the first line. How does one make conflict out of it? "1. A Doctor of Philosophy develops a philosophy about life and death." The Chaos Merchant has to inject one of several possible conflicts here: He is not a Doctor of Philosophy, they have to assert. They are never quite bold enough to say it is not a philosophy. But they can and do go on endlessly as their purpose compels them, in an effort to invalidate the identity of the person developing it. In actual fact, the developer of the philosophy was very well grounded in academic subjects and the humanities, probably better grounded in formal philosophy alone than teachers of philosophy in universities. The one-man effort is incredible in terms of study and research hours and is a record never approached in living memory, but this would not be considered newsworthy. To write the simple fact that a Doctor of Philosophy had developed a philosophy is not newspaper-type news and it would not disturb the environment. Hence the elaborate news fictions about 1 above. Then take the second part of the true story. "People find it interesting." It would be very odd if they didn't, as everyone asks these questions of himself and looks for the answers to his own beingness, and the basic truth of the answers is observable in the conclusions of Scientology. However, to make this "news" it has to be made disturbing. People are painted as kidnapped or hypnotized and dragged as unwilling victims up to read the books or listen. The Chaos Merchant leaves 3 very thoroughly alone. It is dangerous ground for him. "People find it works." No hint of workability would ever be attached to Scientology by the press, although there is no doubt in the press mind that it does work. That's why it's dangerous. It calms the environment. So any time spent trying to convince press Scientology works is time spent upsetting a reporter. On "4. People pass it along to others," press feels betrayed. Nobody should believe anything they don't read in the papers. How dare word-of-mouth exist? So to try to stop people from listening the Chaos Merchant has to use words like "cult." That's a closed group. And they have to attack organizations and their people to try to keep people out of Scientology. Now as for "5. It grows," we have the true objection. As truth goes forward, lies die. The slaughter of lies is an act that takes bread from the mouth of a Chaos Merchant. Unless he can lie with wild abandon about how bad it all is, he thinks he will starve. The world simply must not be a better place according to the Chaos Merchant. If people were less disturbed, less beaten down by their environments, there would be no new appropriations for police and armies and big rockets and there'd be not even pennies for a screaming sensational press. So long as politicians move upward on scandal, police get more pay for more crime, medicos get fatter on more sickness, there will be Merchants of Chaos. They're paid for it. And their threat is the simple story of Scientology. For that is the true story. And behind its progress there is a calmer environment in which a man can live and feel better. If you don't believe it, just stop reading newspapers for two weeks and see if you feel better. Suppose you had all such disturbances handled. The pity of it is, of course, that even the Merchant of Chaos needs us, not to get fatter but just to live himself as a being. So the true story of Scientology is a simple story. And too true to be turned aside. L. RON HUBBARD Founder ================== 179 HCOPL 11 DEC 63 CLASSIFICATION FOR EVERYONE (OEC V4 p 364-5) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 11 DECEMBER 1963 CenOCon General Release URGENT CLASSIFICATION FOR EVERYONE (Amends HCO Poi Ltr of Nov. 26, 1963) HCO Policy Letter of November 26, 1963 should be corrected and amended before magazine or general release where this is possible. HCA is restored to Level III in the table and HCA is ranked as the U.S. version of Commonwealth HPA. HCA/HPA is the Certificate at Level III. At Level II HCA is replaced by "Hubbard Qualified Scientologist" initials HQS. Mark it so in table. Change the rights to train to HAS and to give Class I to "All auditors including and above Hubbard Qualified Scientologist" The Academy course envisioned for the HQS is the old one month Comm Course Upper Indoc HCA/HPA course. Both Comm Course and Upper Indoc are however taught in one week. At the end of this course the student will be given his or her certificate. At the end of this course however, the student is not given Class II. The student is now qualified to train to HAS and Class I and to use and be audited on Class II materials since he or she is in training for Class II. When the student feels ready, he or she may take their Classification examination for Class II. No additional training may be sold this student by an Academy until the student is Class II, and no additional Class II course may be given this student. The cost of the original HQS course is envisioned as L35. It may not be priced above this figure anywhere. The cost of an HAS course is envisioned as not more than L5 where it is charged for and the Class I course for HAS Class I is envisioned as an additional course costing no more than L10. Any auditor from HQS up may teach and charge for HAS courses and HAS Class I courses. There is no restriction on auditing fees charged by auditors or HGCs. Charges for co-audit unit attendance are at discretion. In short it is envisioned that a person may receive his HAS from any auditor HQS or above, or from any Scientology Organization, and similarly may receive his HAS Class I. These HAS and HAS Class I courses are envisioned as evening or weekend courses. The only restriction is that failure to train well before awarding can result in a Committee of Evidence for the trainer. Any HAS Class I may take his or her HQS course at any Academy, will be certified on completion and will be given Classification Examination for Class II at a future date without further formal training. It is necessary to have been classed as Class II before being permitted to take an HCA/HPA course at Level III. Academies will teach the HCA/HPA course with Level III materials. The course is envisioned as 2 months in length and its cost about L78. Classification arrangement is similar to HCA/HPA. It is not envisioned that people taking HAS or HQS or even HCA/HPA courses are making a career out of Scientology. They are expected to keep on working at their jobs. This must be stressed. There is no effort to follow medical - psychiatric practitioner patterns and have offices. There is an effort to work evening and weekends running small organizations of co-audits. The effort is to make Scientologists, not have "patients". This dictates the length of the HQS course as people can seldom get off work for more than a month. This does not interfere, however, with someone working full time in Scientology. Cost and length of courses rise somewhat as they increase in Class as the increased ability of the student, if well processed on classification level processes, commonly brings him or her more income and leisure. The intent of this programme is to (1) Open the road for everyone (2) Provide wider dissemination (3) Guarantee an increase of knowledge to keep pace with increase of ability (4) Provide the cheapest possible processing (5) Regulate processes by Class Level to guarantee a more real advance (6) Steer around rough spots found in the past in technical, administrative and personal areas. There is no effort to decrease the income or present activity of any auditor or organization but only to widen the sphere of action. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 180 HCOPL 13 DEC 63 CO-AUDIT (OEC V5 p 229) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex Sthil Only HGO POLICY LETTER OF 13 DECEMBER 1963 CO-AUDIT Co-audit will hereafter concentrate only on OT processes. A period of training for all Co-audit members will be entered upon as of December 16, 1963. Until after Christmas Basic Auditing and TRs and general O/W will be concentrated on during scheduled auditing periods. After Christmas special training will be given in: 1. Basic Auditing for Goals 2. Nomenclature and Definitions 3. Technique of running. It is expected that by February 15, 1964, all the data will be instinctively known by pcs and auditors and goals processes will then be entered upon by all Co-audit members. No further goals processing or other processing than the above will be done on the Sthil Co-audit until further advices. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.rd Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ================== 181 HCOB 14 DEC 63 CASE ANALYSIS, HEALTH RESEARCH (TV5 p. 388-9, NTV VII p. 359-60) 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 ================== 182 FHCOB 28 DEC 63 ROUTINE 6, INDICATORS, PART ONE: GOOD INDICATORS (TV5 p. 390-2, NTV VII p. 361-4) 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 2 1/2 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. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.bh Copyright c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ==================== 185 MESSAGE LATE 63 DEC RON'S JOURNAL (NTV VII page 366-7, not in old tech vols) Ron's Journal late December AD 13 Well, here we go into AD 14. With all our technology assembled. With a complete Bridge. With OTs emerging. With a worldwide organization still intact. With all attacks upon us failing or failed. With all research targets attained. HAPPY NEW YEAR! There has been such a blur of activity to complete everything that I doubt you've had time to catch up. I know I haven't! In January of 1963 anti-Scientology actions intensified and to "play it safe" I adopted the policies of (a) holding the line in legal spheres and (b) intensified research as the most workable counterattack. These policies were successful. We have held the line, thanks to the activities of Organization and Association Secretaries, HCOs and all Scientology staffs and Scientologists. And we have even made headway. FDA is backing down as they have no case and will lose it even if it ever comes to court. They'll still make noise but it's "sounding brass and the tinkle of the temple bell." John Fudge (Scientology US) has done a fine job with the help of our attorney, Mr. Brinkman. In Australia the Labor Party tried to pass a bill in the Victoria State Parliament to bar out Scientology. We demanded a hearing and sued various slanderers for a quarter of a million pounds. HASI Australia did a grand job of holding the fort. Looks like we've come through the bad news period. You'll still see the summer lightning flitting about the horizon but in actual fact it's a finished storm and we will emerge bone dry and smiling. However, all this tension resulting from the main upsets and numerous other brush fires put a rather heavy strain on me. I had to carry out, in the face of all this, the most intense period of research I've yet done. By August I had it complete to OT and during the autumn was able to subdivide all old technology and provide new basic technology (Scientology Zero) to bridge from the man in the street all the way to OT Every level of auditor and case progress has been plotted now and most of the material released, at least on tape. I have been able to replot activities of auditors and organizations to make the road far less expensive and much more easily followed. Results from processing are in the stars today at any level compared to even a year ago. What I have learned is that cases do not progress beyond their Scientology education level. This has made a great difference. A case hangs right at the point to which it has been educated in Scientology. Processing gains are parallel to education gains and the two balance. Fifty percent of a case gain is from processing, fifty percent from training. DC, back in the days of Dick Steves, one-time Organization Secretary, used to produce graph gains by training alone as Dick used to point out. It's quite impossible to go to OT without a full knowledge of OT processes and an ability to audit them. That was the main point that emerged. But similarly, nobody gets past lower levels as a case without a knowledge of them. This was the main hang up in cases - lack of education in Scientology. And so our whole pattern of forward progress had to change. You have to know to go. And co-audit to OT is the only way it can be made. So vanished is the idea of patients and practitioners. A Scientologist is an auditor. Well, it's been an exciting AD 13. Let's all get wins in AD 14. Happy New Year. L. RON HUBBARD Founder ==================== END OF 1963 MATERIALS _