RON HUBBARD CLEARING SERIES: VOLUME II Expanded Edition PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT ADVANCED ORGANIZATION • SAINT HILL • DENMARK Published by PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT Advanced Organization • Saint Hill • Denmark (AOSH DK Publications Department A/S) Jernbanegade 6 1608 Copenhagen V Denmark ® Publishers for DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY ® Copyright © 1964 by L.
HOW TO USE THIS BOOK This is a professional text, a part of the Clearing Series.
Once, to resolve a case, it was necessary to have a crystal ball, a clean record with the Archangel Michael and a lot of luck.
What emerged, in getting this material into understandable form, was that people had, in general, confused Clearing and Operating Thetans (O.
CLEARING Many had tried to deify Clears and had rarely understood “O.
” Clears and clearing are actually fully explained in the first published article on Dianetics (Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science), and in “Book One” (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health).
Clear is the name of a button on an adding machine.
When you push it, all the hidden answers in the machine clear and the machine can be used for a proper computation.
Such old answers are not cleared. Rollo is still solving the tantrums of his mother who has been dead for years.
And we clear the old senseless answers which won’t let them get more sensible answers.
They are not cleared. Well, really that’s all a clear is.
Well, really that’s all a clear is.
Clears are beings who have been cleared of wrong answers or useless answers which keep them from living or thinking.
THE STATE OF CLEAR Now the state of being cleared was what confused the issue.
People wanted to know what they’d be like if they were cleared. A good question.
The people, cleared, would be better, feel better, act better, be more moral, etc.
” in place of the condition of “being cleared”. “Absolutes,” in our axioms, “are unobtainable.
Dianetics and Scientology are the trademarks of L.
00 DEDICATION To Founding Scientologists Everywhere A Note from the Editor: This publication is not to be confused with the products of the Church of Scientology, CST or RTC.
The publication of this book is purely for historic, scientific and research purposes.
RON HUBBARD CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE THE TRADITION OF SCIENTOLOGY .
IMPORTANT NOTE In studying Scientology, be very, very certain you never go past a word you do not fully understand.
CHAPTER 1 THE TRADITION OF SCIENTOLOGY Once upon a time preclears were full of mysteries and unknowns.
During this past summer, when I had completed the Routine 6 (pc’s own goals) research, I was able to review all the levels and stages a pc or an auditor (a Scientology practitioner) has to go through.
A Freezone Publication The Book of Case Remedies A MANUAL COVERING PRECLEAR DIFFICULTIES AND THEIR REMEDIES By L. RON HUBBARD CLEARING SERIES: VOLUME II Expanded Edition PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT ADVANCED ORGANIZATION • SAINT HILL • DENMARK Published by PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT Advanced Organization • Saint Hill • Denmark (AOSH DK Publications Department A/S) Jernbanegade 6 1608 Copenhagen V Denmark ® Publishers for DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY ® Copyright © 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This expanded edition Copyright © 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Fifth Printing, 1975 ISBN 87 87347 57 1 THE E-METER IS NOT INTENDED OR EFFECTIVE FOR THE DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT OR PREVENTION OF ANY DISEASE. Dianetics and Scientology are the trademarks of L. Ron Hubbard in respect of his published works. Printed in Denmark by PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT Advanced Organization • Saint Hill • Denmark Whisper this to your sons and their sons. . . the work was free. Keep it so. LRH Proofread and Typeset by The Rising Phoenix If any errors are encountered during study, please inform your course supervisor. He will know what to do. April 20. This is the first version produced and checked. If any errors arise and are corrected these numbers will be changed here, 1.00 will become 1.01, 1.02 etc. This box will also contain corrections. V.00 DEDICATION To Founding Scientologists Everywhere A Note from the Editor: This publication is not to be confused with the products of the Church of Scientology, CST or RTC. The publication of this book is purely for historic, scientific and research purposes. This is part of a restoration project at digitalizing the original work, thus making it possible for current masses as well as our future generations to receive, at first hand, the data that was released originally in the times when LRH was still on lines developing the Tech. The information about the publication of the book (known as colophon) is included so that the book remains traceable. If there were to be a digital library for the collection of such books then indeed our books would encounter no difficulties in being included. All care has been taken, through proofreading, that the original text stay exactly the same, however, the minor typographic errors that may exist in the original will have been corrected and documented under errata on the back pages of this book. The text has also been reflown (repaginated) and formatted to the A4 paper size. We hope you enjoy reading this book as much as we have enjoyed restoring it. The Rising Phoenix March 20. HOW TO USE THIS BOOK This is a professional text, a part of the Clearing Series. It does not give the processes on which cases should be run to achieve higher levels. It gives the processes you have to use when the case doesn’t run on standard processes. To use this book properly, one does not start or run cases with the Remedies given. One uses the Table of Remedies, contained herein, when the case has not run at all or, momentarily or consistently, does not advance on general processes. When the case won’t run, whether for a session or for many sessions, look the preclear up in the Table of Remedies and use the prescribed action only long enough to get the preclear running again. Then return to the regular processes for the level. L. RON HUBBARD CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE THE TRADITION OF SCIENTOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 CHAPTER TWO HANDLING THE PRECLEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 CHAPTER THREE KEEP THE PC GETTING AUDITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 CHAPTER FOUR THE PTP, OVERT AND ARC BREAK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 CHAPTER FIVE THE PC THAT QUITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Revision of Remedy A, Remedy B, and S and Ds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 S & Ds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 CHAPTER SIX TABLE OF REMEDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 CHAPTER SEVEN SUPERVISOR’S REMEDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 CHAPTER EIGHT TECHNICAL NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 CHAPTER NINE ENVOY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 INDEX TO REMEDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IMPORTANT NOTE In studying Scientology, be very, very certain you never go past a word you do not fully understand. The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood. If the material becomes confusing or you can’t seem to grasp it, there will be a word just earlier that you have not understood. Don’t go any further, but go back to BEFORE you got into trouble, find the misunderstood word and get it defined and then go on. CHAPTER 1 THE TRADITION OF SCIENTOLOGY Once upon a time preclears were full of mysteries and unknowns. Once, to resolve a case, it was necessary to have a crystal ball, a clean record with the Archangel Michael and a lot of luck. Fourteen active years and tens of thousands of pc’s (preclears) have changed all that. During this past summer, when I had completed the Routine 6 (pc’s own goals) research, I was able to review all the levels and stages a pc or an auditor (a Scientology practitioner) has to go through. What emerged, in getting this material into understandable form, was that people had, in general, confused Clearing and Operating Thetans (O.T.’s). CLEARING Many had tried to deify Clears and had rarely understood “O.T.” Clears and clearing are actually fully explained in the first published article on Dianetics (Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science), and in “Book One” (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health). Clear is the name of a button on an adding machine. When you push it, all the hidden answers in the machine clear and the machine can be used for a proper computation. So long as the button is not pressed, the machine adds all old answers to all new efforts to compute, and wrong answers result. People who have old, fixed answers reacting when they try to think, get wrong answers when they try to solve their current problems. Such old answers are not cleared. Rollo is still solving the tantrums of his mother who has been dead for years. Marybelle is still running away from the tramp who attacked her when she was 10 years old. So Rollo stays home as the solution to the women of the world. And Marybelle runs madly about as a solution to all the uncouth men she sees. Their friends think they’re a bit odd. Their doctors prescribe pills. And we clear the old senseless answers which won’t let them get more sensible answers. As adding machines, or any kind of calculator, they would be junked. They give wrong answers to life because they already have a hidden answer in their cog wheels. They are not cleared. Well, really that’s all a clear is. Clears are beings who have been cleared of wrong answers or useless answers which keep them from living or thinking. THE STATE OF CLEAR Now the state of being cleared was what confused the issue. People wanted to know what they’d be like if they were cleared. A good question. Data accumulated, but not as fast as the questions. The people, cleared, would be better, feel better, act better, be more moral, etc. All that is a matter of record. But the craving for an Absolute caused everyone to put the state called “O.T.” in place of the condition of “being cleared”. “Absolutes,” in our axioms, “are unobtainable.” �— THE STATE OF OPERATING THETAN Operating Thetan is a state of beingness. It is a being “at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life.” Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and Thetan is the Greek letter Theta (θ ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit”, to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words n in engineering. It is also θ or “theta to the nth degree”, meaning unlimited or vast. THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT In brief, a Thetan is an individual spirit or soul or life unit or fifty other things all adding up to the traditional concept of man’s spiritual nature or beingness. More radical, recent thought departed into adventurous bypaths and announced, contrary to more conservative philosophy and usual acceptance, that Man was an animal made up of a brain and bones and possessing no soul. This may have made the originators of this quaint Russo-German school feel less guilty for what they did to men in wars and science. But it takes more than a Marxist psychologist to change every man’s basic philosophy forever; and 99.99% of Earth’s people, at least, still believe they have souls or are souls. Only the philosophically illiterate and the agitators for the recent, radical schools of psychology suppose they have made inroads in man’s belief that he has or is a soul. Only those who seek to enslave Man would try to “sell” the idea of a “soulless man”. The rest of us, and we comprise, remember, 99.99% of the population of the planet, still hold to the concept that we are spirits or spiritual beings and that we go elsewhere when we “die”. Only men who have quite a thirst for revenge would want others to totally die. FOLLOWING TRADITION Remaining with more traditional philosophy and working with what seemed more reasonable, I was able to demonstrate in 1952 the actual existence of this thing called a spirit (the experiments of “Exteriorization”). But wishing to avoid “spiritualism” or even “soul”, because both had such bulky histories as words, I coined the word thetan, derived as above; and Scientologists ever since have been quite happy with it. I should have called it the more traditional Greek word “psyche”, perhaps; but at that time I saw no virtue in being confused with “psychologists” who explain in their own texts that they don’t know what their own name means, as they don’t know what a “psyche” is and don’t believe there is one, which rather upsets their title to the word they use for themselves. But anyway, for better or worse, I used “thetan”. THE ULTIMATE STATE It soon became quite visible that the spiritual condition could be improved, and an ultimate attainment of “cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life” was possible. Now this was the ultimate state. Operating Thetan: A theoretically attainable transcendence over death and the travails of mortal existence. It was a dream. A bold dream. But not a new dream. Like everything else we have in Scientology, it is based on traditional philosophy. The thinking men of every great civilization up to this century, not only would have grasped the meaning of this, but were themselves seeking to attain it. Name a great name in historical philosophy. All right. He was trying to attain O.T. by means of exploration of Life, Thought, Man or the Reason of Things. —0 — Only in the last few decades has the dream been challenged by a radical few. That they teach in universities is only a comment that today’s universities aren’t the halls of enlightenment they were. Ah well, they can all be improved. And it would take more than these rebellious few to smash one of Man’s great dreams—the dream of freedom of spirit, the dream of freedom of self, the dream of ascending above base matter. CLEAR DIFFERS FROM O.T. So O.T. was the state of beingness. Clear was a gradient condition. (A gradual bettering.) During studies of the past year, all this disentangled and became understood, and for the first time was easy to express. Clear is not a gradient up to O.T. Clear is a gradient up to Homo Novis only. Homo (Man) Novis (new). This is a desirable improvement. Very desirable for anyone. An entirely new thing has to be done to make an Operating Thetan. But one had to know how to make one to find out about one. And Routine 6, the process that makes an O.T., starts, really, at Homo Novis. Certainly Routine 6 runs best on a Homo Novis. The proof is that those Scientologists who have been pretty well cleared don’t have any trouble at all with Routine 6; and those who haven’t been cleared, and particularly those who have had few gains in processing, have a pretty awful time of it with Routine 6. They get a bit along with it, but it’s like watching a pygmy wrestle with an elephant. Thus, although we have Routine 6, my task has been to bring preclears up to clear and then to send them onward to OT. THE LEVELS TO O.T. This is done—and very do-able it is—by moving the being up to a few basic wins with ordinary processing (up to Level III) and then moving the preclear up to clear (Level IV) and then going for O.T., which is Level VI (V being skipped, but left in place because it contains a known type of technology, not needed, but necessary to know the existence of). To stretch a point, one is really clearing from Level I to Level IV; but clearing, now that I’ve had a chance to refine it, is itself a process that takes skill and ability both to run and receive. And one has to get the being up to doing that. So a being who can do that is a “Release”, which reaches up to Level II. These stages, as expressed in “Levels”, are all quite real and are getting very precise (see Chart of Gradients). Fourteen years of work developed a lot of know-how. And it all fell into its rightful place when one got to where one could stand high and inspect the ground below. One needed Routine 6 and the practical attainability of O.T. to see where one was with the fellow who just walked in off the street. How did one get such a fellow from the coal pit to the mountain top? That was the problem. — — LEVEL VI achieving LEVEL V (phenomena encountered but not necessarily processed) LEVEL IV achieving CLEAR (Does not react with wrong answers to human problems) LEVEL III achieving HEALTHY (Susceptibility to illness and accident reduced) LEVEL II achieving SELF-DETERMINED (Higher activity level. Less an effect of the environment) LEVEL I achieving RELEASE (One who can get better and knows he has benefited and knows he won’t get worse) LEVEL 0 achieving APPRENTICE SCIENTOLOGIST (One who knows how to know, how to study, what life is about) OPERATING THETAN (Cause over Matter, Energy, Space, Time, Form and Life) THETA CLEAR (A partial condition of O.T. Contains History of Man, Implants, Past Lives, Whole Track Engrams, Para-Scientology data) HOMO SAPIENS GRADIENTS OF VARIOUS STATES — — CHAPTER 2 HANDLING THE PRECLEAR At the lowest place on the route up, one finds the roughest auditing conditions. There is no heroic effort that will produce instantaneous and permanent gain. One can produce a fast gain that is so fast it unstabilizes the pc. It’s all too sudden and new and the pc can’t take it so quick. Witness the fate of a pc who is suddenly “exteriorized”. “Deprived” of a body even for a few minutes in auditing, no matter how much better he feels for those few minutes, the change is too quick. You can exteriorize any pc. That’s sudden and fast and impermanent. So it’s a research tool, not an auditing procedure. You possibly could clear somebody by some lightning fast means, but down he’d come again. Why? Because you haven’t cleared enough buttons, that’s all. You left too many wrong answers on the case for the case to be right in a new state. THE SECRET OF PRECLEAR GAINS The secret of handling the preclear is getting the pc wins he or she can have in the world he or she is living in, and getting more and more such wins, until new gains are acceptable and therefore stable. After that, you can “go for broke” in Clearing. And when you have cleared the pc, until he can stand unaided and get right answers in the existence he or she is living in, you can again go for broke with Routine 6. And you eventually have O.T. BE COMFORTABLE I speak now from a very well substantiated technical height which it took all the fourteen years since Book One to climb. And I find it can be done rather easily, if it is done from step to upward step and not subjected to an impatient hit-or-miss scramble. In scrambling one only gets bruised on the rocks. This is not to say it takes a long time. It takes rather a steady and orderly time, not flying before one can walk, so to speak, and being able to look up without getting dizzy and to look down without being overcome with the grandeur of one’s own climb. Be comfortable about it is the by-word. People enroute at a comfortable rate are actually unaware of gains! They just take them for granted. THE AUDITOR’S TASK The auditor’s task in handling the preclear’s case is to guide the pc upward and again upward to comfortable, acceptable wins, which the pc can have and which, therefore, will be permanent. — — CHAPTER 3 KEEP THE PC GETTING AUDITED In order to help anyone, much less make clears and O.T.’s, it is necessary to keep the pc getting auditing. That sounds rather easy at first glance with all the dazzling goals that can be set for him or her. But in actual fact this is the only place auditors fall down. Obviously you can’t clear anybody, regardless of the techniques you have, if the preclear won’t keep on getting auditing. Give an auditor a preclear to audit and auditors do very well indeed. But when the pc blows, or just doesn’t turn up any more, what then? That’s the end of clearing, isn’t it? THE BASIC PROBLEM So the basic problem of making clears and O.T.’s is not getting preclears to have auditing. That’s easy, really. It’s getting preclears to KEEP ON getting auditing. And there is where auditors, yes and Case Supervisors, fall down. THE PRECLEAR MUST GET WINS There are several reasons why it is hard to get a pc to go on getting auditing. They add up under the heading, WINS. If a pc is not getting wins, then two things happen: (a) Since the pc is not getting more able, the pc is not earning fast enough or finding the additional time necessary to have auditing; and (b) The goal of attaining a higher state is thwarted, and this ARC breaks the pc. If a pc is getting wins, then: (a) The pc gets more able, earns more or finds more wherewithal, and accomplishes more in a given period of time, leaving more time to use for auditing; and (b) The minor upsets or discomforts which accompany even the smoothest auditing are disregarded. ECONOMICS I am sorry to have to mention economics, but these play their role. Operating in a society full of economic traps and snares, one has to have a solution to them or falter. And this applies to both the auditor and the pc, regardless of whether there is any charge for the auditing or not. Freedom from economic, acute duress means freedom to get audited or audit, and such freedom is bought more easily by ability than chance. But a person’s progress improves the person’s control over things long before O.T. is approached actually long before clear is realized. — — THE ROAD IS LONG People don’t realize how long the road is—they don’t want to confront it. But there’s an awful lot of aberration between an ordinary being and a release, much less a clear. A release is one who knows he isn’t going to get worse. The command of a release over his time and possessions, while not overwhelmingly great compared to a clear’s, is yet fabulous compared to one who was never audited at all. THE NECESSITY FOR WINS So it is vitally necessary to keep the pc getting wins, no matter how small, to keep the pc getting audited. This is sometimes hard to do. For the traps of life are always yawning for the person near the bottom. In fact the closer the person is to the bottom, the more likely he or she is to fall into one of life’s snares. Therefore, the closer to the start the person is, the more necessary it is to get him wins; for the easier it is for him to be thrown about in his routine daily existence. As catastrophe is simply arrived at just in day-to-day living while quite uncleared and as the person’s answers in that state are not likely to have a high percentage of accuracy, the easier it is for him to get into a condition where he can’t receive further auditing for economic, social or other reasons. It takes wins to surmount all that. If a being at any point on the route “blows (departs) for good”, they’ve lost the final attainment, even if they did have benefits. KNOW THE ANSWERS So to make releases, clears and O.T.’s one has to know the answer to: HOW DO YOU KEEP A PC GETTING AUDITING? To answer that you have to know the answer to: HOW DO YOU HANDLE A CASE THAT ISN’T WINNING? And to know that you have to know: HOW DO YOU HANDLE CASES? And to know that you have to know: HOW DO YOU HANDLE THE PARTICULAR KINDS AND CONDITIONS OF CASES? All that must seem very vast. And indeed it has been. The knowledge has been of a highly specialized kind, born out of years of training and experience. What do you do when the pc does what? Auditing supervisors have been beating their skulls in on such problems for years. Therefore, seeing this, I developed a sort of table. This table or list gives what to watch for, what to look into when it happens and what to run to take care of it. — — Now all these processes are old ones. They’re tried and trusty. I have not tried in this book to give you the magic processes that assist or release or heal or clear or make O.T., for this material is not the material the auditor falls down on. In this book I have given you the processes that keep a pc getting audited when he seems to stop or wants to stop or might stop. THE FUNDAMENTAL BASICS Given any kind of competent training, the auditor must realize only these things: (a) If a pc can be kept getting auditing, the most dazzling results can be obtained by following the processes for those results; (b) If the pc can’t be kept at auditing, no results can be obtained; (c) That the pc who gets regular wins, acceptable to the pc, will keep on being audited; (d) That the pc who doesn’t get his small quota of wins will blow; and (e) That the blowing preclear is the only remaining, generally unhandled problem in any auditing activity; (f) That the preclear can be handled so as not to blow and to get wins. This book tells you how to do these things. — — CHAPTER 4 THE PTP, OVERT AND ARC BREAK The three general areas which prevent wins are: (1) The P.T.P. (Present Time Problem); (2) The Overt Act (with its withholds of all varieties); and (3) The ARC Break (a sudden drop in Affinity, Reality and Communication). The following facts are some of the best substantiated facts in the whole of our technology: THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM (1) The presence of a Present Time Problem in a session, unless handled, will prevent all gain. If a “PTP” exists in the pc and you try to audit something else and ignore the PTP, the pc’s personality graph will show no change, the TA (Tone Arm of the Meter) will not move well, the pc will not make his or her session goals and auditing may eventually cease. THE OVERT ACT (2) In the presence of an Overt Act undisclosed to the auditor and withheld from him, no matter how openly it may once have been done, the auditing cycle of communication between auditor and pc (as in TR’s 0 to 4) cannot occur, as the pc is withholding. Therefore, nothing can vanish in the pc’s reactive mind and auditing becomes painful. The graph will not change, nor will the TA move well. THE ARC BREAK (3) In the presence of an ARC Break, the pc’s attention is so distracted by the reactive charge that has been by-passed (restimulated, but overlooked by both pc and auditor) that the strain of splitting attention between the charge in the bank and the auditor will operate to worsen the pc’s case, reduce the pc’s graph and freeze the tone arm of the meter. Therefore, one must not pursue an auditing cycle during an ARC break, but may only locate and indicate the by-passed charge. THE MAIN POINT If an auditor doesn’t handle these three things competently, the pc will eventually cease to be audited. Now recognizing that these three things, the PTP, the Overt and the ARC break, are all that really forestall continued auditing, it becomes necessary for the auditor to know his bulletins and be skilled in practice, and to be successful in releasing, healing, clearing or making O.T.’s. I make no attempt here to give all the anatomy and ways of handling the three demons named above. The technology is all over the place in bulletins and publications, and also I intend to do a book on each one. Here, I only wish to point out that if a pc gets wins, he or she will get more auditing. If he gets enough steady auditing on standard processes, he or she will go all the way up. And only the PTP, Overt and ARC Break can prevent the wins and cause the blows. So, to release, heal, clear or make O.T.’s one has to be an expert on blows, their cause and cure. — — CHAPTER 5 THE PC THAT QUITS Pc’s who blow or cease to be audited do so because: (1) Nobody noticed the rising ARC Break; (2) The proper action was not taken in time. HANDLING BLOWS Therefore, one has to do three things in handling a pc who is about to blow or who blows. (Blow means leave, get out, rush away, cease to be where one should really be or just cease to be audited.) These are: (1) Notice the condition or circumstances leading to a blow long before the person does. This is probably the single hardest thing to teach, according to my experience, as it depends on the auditor, supervisor or Scientologist observing and not being so “reasonable” about the being’s condition that nothing is done. (2) Take the proper action to prevent the blow. By proper action is meant to find out what the circumstances preceding the condition have been and then to fit to those circumstances a course of action. Example: Pc has been running Level I only. Well, one wouldn’t go into Level VI or Level IV processes. If the pc has been running Itsa (Saying “It’s a . . . .”), then obviously there is only the auditor’s acknowledgment to consider. So one only finds out what hasn’t been ack’ed (acknowledged). Example: If the person has only been studying, one finds out what the missed definition was. In short, base the action on what the being who is blowing was doing just before the blow. (3) Carry out the course of action effectively. Don’t just find out if the person has withholds. Pull them. Example: HGC pc is blowing. Pc was running overts. D of P (Director of Processing) tells auditor to find the missed withhold. Auditor comes back and says, “Yes, there was one.” The D of P thinks, “That’s good—that’s handled.” Then the D of P hears that the pc went back to Smokeville in the middle of the intensive. Checking, the D of P finds that, although a missed withhold registered on the meter and one was pulled, there was a filthy needle afterwards. So there were several missed withholds and an ineffectual job was done. REMEDIES Remedies for threats about blowing or blows are only good if: (1) The condition is observed; (2) What the person has been doing just before is found out and a course of action based on that is planned; (3) The course of action is effectively carried out. Unless these things are done, one often finds the person who is blowing is already beyond reach. Remedies not properly selected or carried out do not seem to work, and so get invalidated. Remedies are quite workable when the above steps are followed. But a pie that is too sour and requires sugar, doesn’t get any sweeter if you pour salt into it; whereas salt is perfectly acceptable when added to a dish that needs salt. — — HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex Remimeo HCO BULLETIN OF 9 NOVEMBER 1967 REVIEW AUDITORS BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES REVISION OF REMEDY A, REMEDY B, AND S AND Ds (Book revision: Book of Case Remedies; this HCO B modifies and clarifies the text.) This bulletin is to be inserted in and changes The Book of Case Remedies PROCEDURES for Remedy A, Remedy B and S and Ds (Search for and Discovery of Suppressives). Recent analysis made of Qualifications Divisions Departments of Review and of the flow of students and pcs through the Saint Hill org show: 1. The KEY processes so far as orgs are concerned are Remedy A, Remedy B and S & Ds. 2. Auditors need direct mechanical technology to do these three processes effectively. REMEDY A Remedy A locates the MISUNDERSTOODS a person has in Scientology. Originally it read “Misunderstood words.” Words of course will emerge in the general run of misunderstoods. Remedy A is done only by LISTING. It must not be done verbally alone. It is a Level III process. The listing question is “In the subjects of Dianetics or Scientology who or what has been misunderstood?” The item is found on the list and given to the student. That is all. There is no other step. The rules of listing all apply. If the student won’t have the item it is not correct and the list must be straightened up with the general auditing rules that govern listing. REMEDY B The form of this process is changed. It is done by three lists. These three may only be done by formal LISTING and the general tech of listing as governed by Level III tech. The lists make the form of an I PT Subject List Into Past List Misunderstood List — — LIST 1B This is done to locate what in the Scientology PT is giving trouble. It is done as a list and the item is found. The listing question is: “In your studies of Dianetics and Scientology who or what are you having trouble with?” The item is found and given to the student. This step is governed by all the tech of listing. LIST 2B The item found on List 1B is now listed in order to find the past track subject similar to what is giving trouble in present time. The listing question is: “In your past, who or what was similar to . . . . . . . . . . . (item found in List 1B)?” It is highly illegal to limit the question to this lifetime. All the rules of listing apply. The item is found and given to the student. LIST 3B The third list of the process is now done. The listing question is: “Who or what was misunderstood in . . . . . . . . . . . (the item found on list 2B)?” The listing is covered by the general tech of listing as found in Level III. The item is found and given to the student. ____________________ This completes the Remedy B. If a floating needle occurs at any time during the process with good indicators thoroughly visible in the student the process is concluded at that point. The process is used on anyone having trouble studying Dianetics or Scientology. The trouble, as it doesn’t clear up with Remedy A, is coming from some prior subject. More than one of these can be done if all steps are done for each one. S&D Search and Discovery of Suppression is called an “S and D.” It locates the suppressives on the case. I have several times undercut (gotten processes that reach deeper) on S & Ds. The earliest process asked merely who might have been suppressive to the pc. This is still valid, but I have found two flaws in it. —0 — 1. The auditor does not do a listing type S & D at all but just chattily brushes it off. 2. The list from this question contains an actual suppressive that is passed right over. Therefore I undercut the question and obtained much better results because the new question reached deeper. The new question was “Who or what might have suppressed you?” Then I recalled an even deeper question. This was: “What purpose has been suppressed?” This was given to Qual Div SH some time ago. It would have 2 lists. The first is for the purpose as above and the second would be: “Who or what suppressed . . . . . . . . . (purpose found)?” For some reason, probably because no one did 2 lists, this undercut was neglected. Therefore I researched further and developed what we will now use as an S & D. It is one of these killer processes. It is VERY strong. So it isn’t to be carelessly done. If you get a wrong item on an S & D YOU CAN MAKE THE PC ILL. So one has to do an S & D right and follow all the rules of listing as given in Level III tech. Also I find now that when a list item found is a generality (multiple subject, not specific, such as “dogs” or “the public”) the list is simply not complete. One does not have to settle for a generality and then list the generality. He will find that the pc will eventually list the specific non-general item anyway. Of course one can also do a represent list of a general item found if that seems best. The real question for an S & D was established only when I found a purpose all Suppressives have in common and is a very fundamental effort in suppressives. This effort by suppressives, when found, then permitted me to form the question. The key S & D question is: “Who or what has attempted to unmock you?” Unmocking (an effort to reduce or make disappear) is the primary effort of suppressives. Therefore the listing question on test delivers up items totally overlooked by the earlier types of S & D. The question needs to be cleared carefully for non-Scientology. If it has to be rephrased, watch out, as the meaning may vanish. “Tried to make nothing of you” might substitute but at this writing only unmock has been tested and a question for others than educated Scientologists will be developed and issued and made part of the enclosure for the book. This S & D question must be done by LISTING only and with great care to follow Level III listing tech as it, being powerful, will backfire on the pc if done carelessly and a wrong item is found. The item is found by listing and given to the pc, which is the end of the process. If a generality results it may be represented. But listing continued will give the same result of a single item. A general item must not be given to the pc as the final result. This process will now be standard review S & D. LRH:jp.ts Copyright © 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED L. RON HUBBARD Founder — — HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex Remimeo HCO BULLETIN OF 13 JANUARY 1968 S & Ds There are three types of S & D (Search and Discovery). These are used to nullify the influence of Suppressive persons or things on a case so the person will be able to be processed and will no longer be P.T.S. (a Potential Trouble Source). People who are P.T.S. became that way because of suppression by persons or objects. Insanity is also remediable by S & Ds where the person can be processed. These are all LISTING processes and if the auditor is not well trained and good at the technology of listing, not only will no good result occur but the pc (given a wrong item, overlisted or underlisted, or audited over an ARC Break or PTP) can be made ill. Pcs who become ill are always to a greater or lesser degree PTS. These questions should not be shown to a pc as they may start him self-listing. The “type” is determined by the 1st letter of the key word in the listing question. S & D TYPE U “Who or what has attempted to unmock you?” Where this does not communicate, use “Who or what has tried to make nothing out of you?” A very bad off case may respond best to “Who or what has unmocked you?” This (above) is the standard and most used S & D. S & D TYPE S “Who or what are you trying to stop?” This works on all cases to a greater or lesser degree. It is particularly useful on a case that is giving a great deal of trouble, gets small reads or is rather suppressive. This should work on the n insane also as the point where a θ (thetan) becomes insane is the point where he begins to n generally stop things. I looked for years for the exact point where a θ ceased to be sane and became insane on any given subject and finally found that it was the exact moment he became dedicated to trying to stop whatever it was. S & D TYPE W “Who or what are you trying to withdraw from?” This is the action after a failure to stop has occurred. ____________________ In administering these, the best order would be Type W, Type S and then Type U, if you are going to give them all to the same pc in a row. Any or all can be given to the same pc. S & Ds can be given more than once to the same pc. Properly listed the results are magical. If they are not magical, then listing tech is badly out and should be re-studied from ALL materials and tapes on the subject. — — Errors are located and repaired by the recent new L4A (HCOB of 9 January 1968). LRH:jp.ts Copyright © 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED L. RON HUBBARD Founder — — CHAPTER 6 TABLE OF REMEDIES REMEDY A Applies to: ANY COURSE STUDENT, including P.E. What is Noticed: Noted to be frowning or nattering. What is Established: Mainly has been studying. What to Do: Effectively clarify definitions recently studied. REMEDY B Applies to: ANY COURSE STUDENT, including P.E. What is Noticed: Noted to be frowning, nattering or criticizing, and asking questions which really don’t apply to Scientology, or twist it. What is Established: Has been studying similar subjects for years. What to Do: Get the person audited on definitions not grasped in subjects similar to Scientology and studied previously by the pc. (In P.E. this is assigned as self-audit; in all other cases it is audited by an auditor.) REMEDY C Applies to: ANY STUDENT. What is Noticed: Being destructive in any way, criticizing instructors, auditors. What is Established: Mainly has been studying. What to Do: Get upper course student or competent, qualified student to find and pull withholds missed by “Scientologists” and to find when they missed them. REMEDY D Applies to: ANY PC. What is Noticed: Criticizing own auditor in session. What is Established: Has been getting auditing from this auditor for only this session. What to Do: Look for and pull withholds other auditors have missed. REMEDY E Applies to: ANY PC. What is Noticed: Criticizing own auditor in session. What is Established: Has been audited smoothly for more than one session by this auditor or has personal relationships with auditor. What to Do: Look for and pull overts pc has committed against this auditor. — — REMEDY F Applies to: ANY PC. What is Noticed: Criticizing own auditor in session. What is Established: Has been being audited by auditor who is now antagonistic to pc. What to Do: Get an ARC Break Assessment done (Level III to VI) on appropriate list and also on List One (L1 for Session ARC Breaks). Then have both pc’s and auditor’s O/W’s pulled on each other. REMEDY G Applies to: ANY PC. What is Noticed: Criticizing course or organization. What is Established: Has been audited some time without gain (minimal TA). What to Do: Get an ARC Break Assessment run on pc, using the list for processes last run and session list also. Do by-passed charge assessment, clearing each appropriate list and session list. Then look for undisclosed PTP’s and hidden standards, and handle by Itsa on solutions they have had for each problem as it is found, until it does not needle register on “How do you feel now about . . . . . . ?” REMEDY H Applies to: ANY PERSON. What is Noticed: Refusing auditing. What is Established: Has never been audited. What to Do: Discover what goal this person has had that has been thwarted. Indicate it to person as the by-passed charge. Find who in the person’s surroundings didn’t acknowledge, and spot incomplete comm cycles to that person. Find other people in pc’s life who didn’t ack. Spot these cycles, etc. Then handle as a routine case, but use only light processes, Itsa on solutions to problems, then locational, and then havingness. REMEDY I Applies to: ANY PERSON. What is Noticed: Being bitter about Scientology, being very argumentative. What is Established: No experience with Scientology. What to Do: Avoid discussion of Scientology. Discuss only other subjects, similar to Scientology, person has not understood, until person feels better about them. (This is not done as auditing.) Then find what goal has been thwarted by earlier, similar subject person is most sour on and indicate it as by-passed charge and proceed as in REMEDY H. — — REMEDY J Applies to: ANY PERSON. What is Noticed: Criticizing you as a Scientologist. What is Established: No experience with Scientology. What to Do: Have person discuss difficulties they have had in helping people. (Handle these as incomplete comm cycles the person has.) Be careful to ack any overts disclosed, but don’t probe for any not volunteered. Proceed then as in REMEDY H. REMEDY K Applies to: ADVANCED PC (upper levels). What is Noticed: Refusing auditing. What is Established: Has had some highly restimulative, unsuccessful auditing. What to Do: Do appropriate ARC Break Assessment to fit the processes run. Thus locate and indicate the main process charge. Do a session type ARC Break Assessment as needed (if pc is still not cheerful). When ARC break’s gone, audit pc on by-passed charge assessments on same lists used to locate ARC break. Go on processing processes that were already in progress. REMEDY L Applies to: ANY PC. What is Noticed: Pc refusing a majority of available auditors. What is Established: Pc has been ARC broken by some practitioner somewhere or by auditors. What to Do: If audited at Level III or below, do generalized (wording questions on list, “In auditing. . . . . . . . . .?”) ARC Break Assessment with L1 (can be broadened to include any practitioner, pre-Scientology). If audited above Level III, do ARC Break Assessment using list for process most recently run, then generalized ARC Break Assessment with L1 (session). Then pull withholds auditors (or earlier practitioners) have missed. Then pull overts on past auditors (or practitioners). Then if pc not cheerful, pull overts on present auditor. Resume process that was being run. REMEDY M Applies to: ANY PC. What is Noticed: Pc has blown. What is Established: Audited over ARC breaks. What to Do: Examine reports carefully and find earlier session where pc first set a sour, beginning-of-session goal. Examine the session immediately before that session and list, from the report on that earlier session, several possible reasons for by-passed charge for both the process that was used and List One (Session ARC Breaks). By any communication — — means, indicate each of these possible reasons as possible by-passed charge to the pc. When pc returns, do generalized by-passed charge assessments covering the types of processes run during and since the first ARC break. Then do an L1 by-passed charge assessment in a generalized (any session) form. Then determine what goals in auditing have been thwarted, handling by Itsa and letting pc cognite on the various by-passed charges thus located. Then resume auditing what was interrupted by the blow. REMEDY N Applies to: ANY PC. What is Noticed: Leaving session good but consistently returning to next session caved in with new PTP’s. What is Established: Find out if pc has someone close to him opposed to and fighting Scientology and making nothing of him or his gains. What is Done: If so, have pc move out of that environment for the duration of any intensive. REMEDY O Applies to: INSANE PC. What is Noticed: Relatives or others demanding something must be done. What is Established: Pc can best be helped by providing a safe environment. What to Do: Advise isolation and quiet rest away from usual areas and associations, and forbid physically damaging treatments of any kind. REMEDY P Applies to: ANY PC. What is Noticed: Pc continually over-restimulated despite effective auditing. What is Established: Gets more restimulated by usual environment than auditing can stay even with. What is Done: Advise change of residence and no work during period of intensive. REMEDY Q Applies to: ANY PC. What is Noticed: No remedy seems to work. What is Established: Discover what other therapies or exercises pc is also doing between sessions. What is Done: Run Itsa on ideas he has had to help himself until original difficulty shows up, and handle it. — — CHAPTER 7 SUPERVISOR’S REMEDIES The following section of the Table of Remedies applies to any session; therefore, the “Applies to” portion is omitted. The “What is Observed” portion of each remedy refers to what the supervisor observes in auditing reports or sees in the actual session. The “What to Do” portion refers to what the supervisor now looks for or establishes to be the case. The “What to Direct” portion is what the supervisor tells the auditor to do, either directly, or by writing it on the auditor’s report. Recognize that these following remedies also should be used by the individual auditor. REMEDY R What is Observed: No TA action; were getting it—not now getting it. What to Do: Look back through past reports to see when the TA ceased and what happened at that time. What to Direct: Some earlier process is unflat or auditor didn’t handle something. Tell auditor to flatten earlier process or to handle what was found. REMEDY S What is Observed: TA gone high. What to Do: Go back and find where TA was low. Find the point just after that where something happened. Investigate that time period for what happened. (PTP, missed withhold, etc.) What to Direct: Handle what is found. REMEDY T What is Observed: Pc sour when giving gains (didn’t make most of session goals). What to Do: Investigate the session through report, auditor or pc. (Auditor overflattened a process, Q-and-A’ed or whatever.) What to Direct: Handle what happened that soured the pc, specifying what happened. REMEDY U What is Observed: Auditor reports that pc’s comments are critical. What to Do: Investigate that session. (PTP, missed withholds, ARC break, etc.) What to Direct: Handle, specifying what was found. REMEDY V What is Observed: Auditor says pc is being run on wrong process. Yet there is TA action. What to Do: Pc protesting process; auditor agreeing. What to Direct: Flatten process. — — REMEDY W What is Observed: Auditor says pc has an unflattened process. What to Do: Maybe the pc is only stuck in a win. Something wrong. Find out by talking to pc. What to Direct: If process pc won on is unflat, flatten that after you’ve flattened what you’re doing. If pc is only stuck in a win, get pc’s considerations on it off and unstick the pc so he can be run on anything. REMEDY X What is Observed: Auditor comments process is flat while still getting TA action on it. What to Do: Normally on investigating, you find pc is protesting process is flat and the auditor has agreed, saying TA action is on “Protest”. What to Direct: Get session ruds in; flatten process. REMEDY Y What is Observed: Auditor suggesting some weird solution (like pc can’t be audited where pc is being audited). What to Do: Find out why auditor is suggesting solution. (Maybe withholds from others around, etc.) What to Direct: Handle the reason the solution is being suggested. (Itsa, any elementary brief process.) REMEDY Z What is Observed: Auditor blaming pc’s condition on course, supervisors, etc. Or if not on course, is blaming pc’s environment for condition. (Student auditor comments, “The course is over-restimulative. Don’t let pc study or any thing.”) What to Do: Recognize that auditor is not good at destimulating pc, but good only at restimulating. What to Direct: Run destimulation processes only (PTP’s, overts, etc.). REMEDY AA What is Observed: Pc has had electric shock. Auditor’s solution is to run it out. What to Do: Supervise heavily to prevent it from being done. What to Direct: Light touch. Don’t go near it. Let pc get on top. Don’t throw pc into something he or she can’t handle. Locational processes, ARC straight wire, etc. REMEDY AB What is Observed: No TA action on chronic somatics. Auditor wants to do something instantly, but no TA on it. Auditor has all kinds of reasons why something must be done about it. — — What to Do: Find something out about the whole subject that reacts well on meter (hospital, doctor, etc.) and that you can get TA action on, or what they weren’t able to do because of it, or what it got pc out of doing, or what it would cost to lose it. What to Direct: Run that. REMEDY AC What is Observed: Pc gets queasy in auditing (an auditing queasiness). What to Do: Havingness down. Auditor is not really running a havingness process right. What to Direct: See that havingness is run right or pc’s right havingness process is found. REMEDY AD What is Observed: While being audited, pc doesn’t want to be controlled. Not ARC broken, just balky. What to Do: Check Help. What to Direct: 5-way Help bracket. REMEDY AE What is Observed: Pc complaining about mass, no matter what you run. (Auditor says, “Every time pc talks of 1962 he gets mass.”) What to Do: Recognize it’s a service facsimile. What to Direct: Locate and handle the pc’s service fac. REMEDY AF What is Observed: The degraded type pc (never been able to help). The “can’t” type pc(can’t audit, etc.). What to Do: Discover if, in actual fact, they’re being effective in the area they say they aren’t. What to Direct: Appropriate sec checking. (There are hidden overts in the area of the complaint.) (A special sec check list may have to be drawn up for area.) REMEDY AG What is Observed: Weird chronic PTP. (The preclear is always concerned about “husband running around with other women”, yet this is not happening.) No TA action on it. What to Do: If no TA action on it, find out what the problem really is. What to Direct: Look for an area around that subject which does get TA and run it and destimulate the problem. (If TA on it, handle like any other PTP). —0 — REMEDY AH What is Observed: Auditors won’t audit pc. Constant natterer in sessions, nothing cures. What to Do: Find out if pc’s ARC broken with life. What to Direct: R4H (R2H was the older designation of the same process.) REMEDY AI What is Observed: Pc runs same incident always. What to Do: Find what pc is doing with this Chronic PTP that has never been brought up or recognized. Incident explains something for pc. (The pc is using the incident as a solution to some PTP that must be run.) What to Direct: Locate and run the actual PTP. REMEDY AJ What is Observed: The pc who has huge overts and no responsibility for them. What to Do: Recognize pc has no real idea they are overts and the actions are not real to the pc. What to Direct: Run Justifications. REMEDY AK What is Observed: The person who’s never done anything bad or irregular in his whole life. What to Do: Recognize the condition as impossible and that pc is withholding heavily. What to Direct: Find the overts by asking, “Have you ever murdered anyone?” (Ask a lot of shocking questions.) Pc objects, but gives real ones the pc has done. REMEDY AL What is Observed: The pc who can remember nothing. What to Do: Recognize pc is below recall processes. What to Direct: Cease pressing for recalls at once. Run totally objective processes of a simple kind (“Where is room object . . . . . . ?” etc.), until pc can remember. REMEDY AM What is Observed: Pc who won’t do any work in a session. Auditor has to do it all. What to Do: Recognize that a session is a solution. What to Direct: “What is an auditing session a solution to?” Then: Done/Not Done processes. — — REMEDY AN What is Observed: Pc doesn’t want to talk about case. Comes for session but isn’t interested in case. What to Do: Recognize pc can’t comm because hasn’t anyone to talk to and has no self. Terminal scarcity. What to Direct: “Recall a terminal.” Also ARC Straight Wire. REMEDY AO What is Observed: Pc doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with him. What to Do: Sit down and find what pc thinks he can improve. “What area do you think you can make some improvement on?” What to Direct: Process area. REMEDY AP What is Observed: Process fine with good TA action; however, next day process not flat, but no TA action can be gotten on pc. Also the pc that always has to have new processes. What to Direct: Find overts or withholds. If these don’t cure this, use any type of Duplication which was a standard process for duplication trouble. Run duplication. (Two objects, what things are alike, op-pro-by-dup, etc.) REMEDY AQ What is Observed: The unreal pc. (No leg, but has ballet dancer ambitions.) What to Do: Recognize fact that pc is in an unreality and that pc is not confronting. What to Direct: Run objective reality (“Look around here and find something really real.”) Also old Universe and Valence processes work on this. REMEDY AR What is Observed: Pc looking, doing better, but never seems to get any gains. Complains. What to Do: Recognize fact pc on a succumb. Auditor pc goals are contrary. Hidden standard. What to Direct: “What would have to happen to you to know Scientology worked?” Run repetitively, and carefully list PTP’s that pc uses as answers for eventual handling. The goof in doing this is not to list PTP’s pc brings up. These must be handled after the process, above, is flat. REMEDY AS What is Observed: Pc who wants to shock the auditor. What to Do: Recognize fact that pc is trying only to produce effects. What to Direct: Effect production process, “What could you really do?” — — REMEDY AT What is Observed: Pc who only wants to give other people’s misdeeds, rarely his own. What to Do: Recognize pc doesn’t give own misdeeds and pc has withholds. What to Direct: Jo’burg. Justifications. REMEDY AU What is Observed: Pc who always has “withholds” he gets off that are critical of the auditor. What to Do: Recognize as symptom of an overt on auditor, or that pc never recognizes who auditor is. Confuses auditor with somebody else. What to Direct: Run overts on auditor or “Look at me. Who am I?” REMEDY AV What is Observed: Pc inventing processes he must have run on him. What to Do: Recognize fact that pc has unflattened processes. What to Direct: Find and flatten unflattened processes. REMEDY AW What is Observed: Pc writing auditor huge notes. What to Do: Realize pc had not been ack’ed. What to Direct: “What have I heard?” Any other ack process. (Also “Recall a terminal.”) REMEDY AX What is Observed: Pc who does everything he’s not supposed to do while being audited. What to Do: Realize pc feels he doesn’t deserve auditing. Wasting auditing. Wasting help. What to Direct: “Who deserves auditing?” Any of the old-time Valence or Universe processes. Also “Who should be getting auditing?” REMEDY AY What is Observed: Pc who can only he audited by a specific auditor. What to Do: Recognize terminal scarcity. What to Direct: “Recall a Terminal.” REMEDY AZ What is Observed: Pc who complains processing has ruined some ability. What to Do: Find if the process was left unflat. What to Direct: Flatten the process that “ruined” him. — — REMEDY BA What is Observed: Pc is doing something else other than what auditor is doing. What to Do: Recognize pc is doing odd things with questions. What to Direct: Hand Space Mimicry, or any duplication process. REMEDY BB What is Observed: Pc with withholds, but never gets them off. What to Do: Recognize pc audited above comm level. What to Direct: “Who would it be safe to talk to?” or “What could you tell me?” REMEDY BC What is Observed: Pc obsessively digging up bad things in his case. (You do something for pc and pc has something else wrong. Can’t keep ahead of the pc’s difficulties or symptoms.) What to Do: Establish if pc being audited on own determinism and handle PTP with person making pc get audited. Also Serv Fac. Also huge, undisclosed PTP or huge, undisclosed overt. What to Direct: Handle what is established above. REMEDY BD What is Observed: Pc in past wins (glories of yesterday). What to Do: Recognize pc is stuck in wins. What to Direct: Validation type processing. “What have you been?” or “Recall a win.” REMEDY BE What is Observed: Pc, always and only, auditing away at back track. What to Do: See if pc isn’t heavily over-restimulated. What to Direct: Destimulative type, light auditing only. REMEDY BF What is Observed: Pc always running as having been important identities in the past. What to Do: See if pc is bitter about present life or if pc feels degraded about something. What to Direct: R4H (old R2H redesignated as R4H). REMEDY BG What is Observed: Pc who uses psychoanalytic terms, symptoms and explanations continually, or any pc who uses terms and symptoms of another practice, religion or activity. What to Do: Establish what practice or body of knowledge it was. — — What to Direct: “What was (practice) a solution to?”, O/W on practitioner, missed withholds from practitioner, misunderstood terms, unflattened “process”. Get the problem the pc was trying to solve by going to the analyst (or other practitioner). If problem is occluded, it will finally emerge by getting pc to recall solutions. (A whole psychoanalysis can be “lock scanned” out in a short time.) REMEDY BH What is Observed: Unable to pull an overt. What to Do: Get the pc’s comm level to auditor raised. What to Direct: Be sure pc is not in an ARC break (if so, get appropriate assessment done first and handle ARC break). Direct “What are you willing to talk to me about?” be run until student or pc in good comm with auditor. Then pull the overts. REMEDY BI What is Observed: Student or pc wants to leave before activity completed. Has motivators. What to Do: Stamp on anyone who is “being reasonable” about condition and explain to them definitions and overts. Get student or pc handled by self or another. Refuse to let people flub this one. What to Direct: (a) Handle any ARC break by appropriate list, (b) Pull any overt student or pc has recently committed in the area, (c) Get the word the student or pc has missed or not understood located and defined, (d) Get the Supervisor or auditor checked out on overts and also misdefined words. REMEDY BJ Applies to: CASES THAT DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THE ABOVE WHEN THE CORRECT OBSERVATION WAS MADE AND THE REMEDY WELL APPLIED. What is Observed: No remedies work although pc has been audited on them. What to Do: Find out if pc (a) Has been drawing or has been promised disability compensation, or (b) Is in any way being rewarded for his condition, or (c) Has been part of any healing profession, or (d) Is a professional auditor or Scientologist. Assess the words “condition”, “disability”, “sickness” for largest read. (Other words of like nature may be used in the assessment.) What to Direct: Flatten the following process: “What (word assessed) have you been paid for?” (Tense can also be changed to “are you being” or “will you be” connected to word assessed.) — — CHAPTER 8 TECHNICAL NOTES Note 1: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS AND BYPASSED CHARGE AUDITING. You do not audit an ARC Break Assessment. Auditing consists of asking or commanding and acknowledging. You don’t ask anything, or give a command and then acknowledge, while giving an ARC Break Assessment. You just do it and indicate to the pc what reads on the needle. You do this until the pc is cheerful again. There are several lists. Only one (L1) applies to a session. The others apply to levels and types of processes. Only a skilled meter operator should do ARC Break Assessments. An unskilled one makes only more ARC breaks by flubs. If an auditor who can’t do an ARC Break Assessment has a pc ARC break, that auditor should find an auditor who can do an assessment and get it done on the pc before proceeding with auditing. A by-passed charge assessment, unfortunately, also has “assessment” as part of its name and can be confused with an ARC Break Assessment. But a by-passed charge assessment is actual auditing (Level III). Here one cleans each smallest read off a question (but not cleaning cleans) before going on to the next question, handling originations by the pc and acknowledging. One never does this with an ARC broken pc. With an ARC break one just ploughs on looking for a big read and indicates it to pc. Note 2: THE DOUBLE ARC BREAK. If at any time during the handling of a pc who is blowey or has blown, the pc again ARC breaks while doing the ARC Break Assessment: (a) locate the charge that has just been by-passed; and then (b) resume handling the charge that was being looked for when the new ARC break occurred. Don’t mistake mere criticism and natter which is usually present during an ARC Break Assessment for a new ARC break. Note 3: All of the above apply to Clay Table and any other type of auditing. Note 4: In the Supervisor remedies I was greatly assisted by Mary Sue who has supervised more HGC’s than any other auditor in the world. — — CHAPTER 9 ENVOY None of the remedies, given above, have failed when actually applied in any case which had the symptoms for which the process is recommended. They have been used as the routine advice given to auditors for their preclears by myself. They have been used in many more instances by Mary Sue during times she worked as a Case Supervisor or Director of Processing in many organizations. Almost all of these processes are quite old. You will note that these processes do not resolve the preclear’s main aberrations. They only resolve the preclear’s complaints, lack of wins and tendencies to blow. While useful even in general processing, few would be a satisfactory diet for all sessions, always. Here we are only taking up the troublesome cases, the cases that are made troublesome by lack of wins, the case situations which absorb the bulk of a Supervisor’s time and sap his and the auditor’s morale. I don’t at the moment recall any cases or conditions of blow different from the ones given in the tables above. And Mary Sue, after some thought, couldn’t recall any others. This does not mean there are no others, but they would be pretty unusual if there were. USE BY SUPERVISORS The apparent exception to the table, the case everybody says is different and not covered, falls under the “Australian heading” (because Australians almost never do what they’re asked to do). This exception would go somewhat like this: D of P to Staff Auditor: “Use Remedy AG on your pc today.” (Later) Staff Auditor to D of P: “That didn’t work.” This routine could be followed by the D of P thinking, “Golly, that’s a different type of case. Not covered in the table,” and sitting up half the night working out a new approach. Rather the D of P, being wily and wise in the ways of auditors, should have said to “That didn’t work”—D of P to Staff Auditor: “What didn’t work?” And the staff auditor would then have said, “Why, getting the pc to think of horrible things to do to her husband.” Which isn’t, if you care to look, REMEDY AG. For being wily and wise myself in these matters, I always ask “What didn’t work?” And if the answer was what I’d said in the first place, I’d have then asked the pc what was run and would have found something else had been used. By being sure the direction was followed and was done, I then have found what did and didn’t work; and so you have a table. And in using it to supervise be sure that: 1. The condition the pc is manifesting is the one reported, 2. The right manifestation is located in the table, and 3. The instruction is properly and completely executed. — — Only if you do these things, can you supervise the auditing of pc’s successfully. The Case Supervisor or D of P who doesn’t take the three steps above, remorselessly, will have pc’s blow or will have that more gentle blow they just don’t keep on with auditing. But let us end on a happier note. You have here the secrets of fourteen years of experience with patching up cases and keeping them going. I’m glad I thought of putting it together for you. And you are welcome to all the success it brings. Good auditing! L. RON HUBBARD — — INDEX TO REMEDIES “Ability ruined by processing” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AZ ack, Lack of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H, AW Advanced pc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K advice, Giving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N, O, P antagonism, Auditor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F ARC breaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F, G, K, L, M, U, AH, BH, BI Argumentative person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I auditing, Refusing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H, K auditing, Unsuccessful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K auditing, Wasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AX auditors, Professional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BJ auditors, Refusing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .L, AY Auditors won’t audit this pc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AH back track, Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BE Between sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N, P, Q Bitterness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I, BF Blown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M Breaking rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AX By-passed charge assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G, K, M “Can’t” type pc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AF Case, “has none” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AN, AO cases (other), Remedies for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q, BJ comm cycles, Incompleted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H, J comm level, Audited above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BB, BH Complaining pc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AR, AZ confronting, Not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AQ control, Resisting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AD Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, C Critical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, U, Z, AT, AU Critical of own auditor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D, E, F, AU definitions, Use of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, I, BG, BI Degraded pc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AF, BC, BF “Deserves no auditing” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AX Destimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K, N, O, P, Z, AG, BE determinism, Other- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BC difficulties, Can’t keep ahead of . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N, P, BC Disability compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BJ Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I, J duplication, Mis- or Non- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AP, BA effect on auditor, Wants to produce . . . . . . . . .AS Electric shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AA Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N, O, P, Z Exercises, other fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q — — Flat process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W, X Friends opposed to pc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N Frowning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B gain, No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G, K, N, P, Q, AB, AH, AR, BJ gains, Sour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .T, AR Goals, auditor-pc contrary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AR goals, session, Didn’t make . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .T Goals sour beginning session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M Goal thwarted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H, I, M Havingness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H, AC Healing professions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BJ help, Difficulties with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J, AF help, Wasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AX Hidden standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G, AR identities, Important past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BF incident, Always runs same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AI Incomplete activity, wants to leave . . . . . . . . . . .BI Insane pc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .O Interest, none in case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AN Inventing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AV Justifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AJ, AT levels, Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K, L mass, Complaints about . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AE misdeeds, Giving others’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AT Misdeeds, has none . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AK Missed withholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C, D, L, S, U, BG Motivators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BI Natter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, C, AH New persons (non-Scientologists) . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, H, I, J, L notes, Writing auditor huge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AW Occlusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AL, BG Other treatments (therapies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B, O, Q, BG, BJ Over-flattened process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .T Over-restimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K, N, O, P, Z, BE Overts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E,F,J,L,Z,AF,AJ,AK,AP,AT,AU,BC,BH,BI overts, Giving others’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AT Overts, has none . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AK overts, Obsessively giving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BC Overts on auditor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E, F, AU —0 — PE Course (useful to) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, C, I, J PTP’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G, N, P, Q, S, U, Z, AG, AI, AR, BC, BG PTP’s, Chronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AG, AI PTP’s, Constantly new . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N, P Practices, other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .O, Q, BG Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .L, BG, BJ Processes (handling of) Always must have new . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AP Flat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .R, V, W, X, AP Inventing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AV Over-flat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .T Protesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V, X Unflat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .R, V, W, X, AP, AV, AZ, BG Wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V Processes (types) Ack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H, J, AW Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B, N, O, P ARC Break Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F, G, K, L, M, U, AH, BH ARC Straight Wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AA, AN By-passed charge assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . .G, K, M Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, I, BG, BJ Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I, J “Done/Not Done” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AM Duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AP, BA Effect production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AS Havingness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H, AC Help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AD Itsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G, H, M, Q, Y Jo’burg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AT Justifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AJ, AT Locational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H, AA Lock scanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BG Missed withholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C, D, L, S, U, BG Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AL, AQ O/W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F, AM, BG Overts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E, J, L, Z, AF, AJ, AK, AP, AU, BC, BH, BI R-4H (R-2H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AH, BF Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AL, AN, AW, AY, BD, BG Sec checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AF, AK, AT Service fac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AE, BC Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G, AM, BG Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AQ, AX Valence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AQ, AX Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BD Withholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F, AK, AP, AT, AU, BB, BG Professional auditors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BJ Psychoanalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BG pull overts, Unable to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BH Q & A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .T queasiness, Auditing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AC questions, Non-applicable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B — — Reasonableness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BI Recall, none . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AL Refusing auditing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H, K Refusing auditors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .L, AY Registrars (useful to) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H, I, J Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N, O, P Religions, other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BG Remedies, when none work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q, BJ Responsibility, none . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AJ Restimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K, N, O, P, Z, BE Safe environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .O, BB Service fac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AE, BC shock auditor, Trying to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AS solutions, Auditor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Y, Z, AA, AB solutions, Weird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Y, Z, AA, AB, AI, AM somatics, Chronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AB Stuck in wins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W, BD Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, C Supervisors (useful to) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, C, G, I, J, BI TA, High . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S TA action, Minimal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G TA action, none . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .R, AB, AG, AP Terminal scarcity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AN, AW, AY terms, Misunderstood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, I, BG, BI Treatment, therapies, other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B, P, Q, BC, BF Unflat process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .R, V, W, X, AP, AV, AZ, BG Unreal pc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AJ, AQ Wasting auditing, -help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AX wins, Stuck in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W, BD Withholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F, AK, AP, AT, AU, BB, BG “withholds”, Critical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AU withholds, Never gets off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BB words, Misunderstood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A, B, I, BG, BI work in session, Won’t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AM Wrong process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V — — FREE CATALOG ON REQUEST BUY THESE BOOKS BY L. RON HUBBARD Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science The story of the over two decades of L. Ron Hubbard’s vital pioneering research. It is a uniquely valuable, readable work giving an understanding of how Hubbard was able to bring precision and workability to the customarily inexact subject of philosophy and the human mind. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health A spectacular international best seller from the first moment of its publication in May, 1950, this is the book of man’s most advanced knowledge and technology in the field of the human mind. Science of Survival This is the major work written in 1951 and greatly extending the scope and technique of Dianetics. Built around the famous Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation, Science of Survival gives new theory, further techniques, startlingly precise methods for predicting human behavior, and insights into the activities of Man. (Over 540 pages plus chart.) A History of Man A list and description for auditors of the principal incidents to be found on the time track of a human being. “This is a cold-blooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years.” Expanded edition of 1952 book originally titled What to Audit. The Creation of Human Ability A huge number of processes for use by Scientology auditors, with extensive elucidation of the philosophical and technical discoveries by L. Ron Hubbard from which the processes and sets of processes (Standard Operating Procedures) were derived. Here is a very large segment of Scientology’s successful route, through the increase of individual ability, to total freedom. Available from: PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT Advanced Organization • Saint Hill • Denmark Jernbanegade 6 16 Copenhagen V, Denmark or your nearest Hubbard Scientology Organization (see next page). HUBB A R D S C IE N TO L O G Y C H U R C H E S O F O R G A N I Z AT I O N S SCI E N TO L O G Y GREAT BRITAIN UNITED STATES CANADA Advanced Organization Saint Hill United Kingdom (AOSH UK) Saint Hill Manor East Grinstead, Sussex RH19 4JY, England American Saint Hill Organization (ASHO) 2723 West Temple Street Los Angeles, Calif. 90026 124 Avenue Road Toronto, Ontario M5R 2H5 68 Tottenham Court Road London W.1, England 39 Portland Square Sherwell, Plymouth, Devon PL4 6DJ, England 48, Faulkner Street Manchester Ml 4FH, England 20 Southbridge Edinburgh EH1 1LL, Scotland DENMARK Advanced Organization Europe c/o FOLO EU, Kochsvej 28 1812 Copenhagen V Saint Hill Europe (SHEU) Jernbanegade 6 1608 Copenhagen V Hovedvagtsgade 6 1103 Copenhagen K Frederiksborgvej 5-11 2400 Copenhagen NV SWEDEN Drottninggatan 53 S-111 21 Stockholm Skomakaregatan 12 S-211 34 Malmö Magasinsgatan 12 S-411 18 Göteborg HOLLAND Singel 261 Amsterdam C WEST GERMANY Lindwurmstrasse 29-31 8000 Munich 2 AUSTRIA Advanced Organization Los Angeles (AOLA) 916 South Westlake Ave. Los Angeles, Calif. 90006 2005 West 9th Street Los Angeles, Calif. 90006 2125 “S” Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008 49 West 32nd Street New York, New York 10001 19 Clifford Detroit, Michigan 48226 1235 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 2108 Industrial Road Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 414 Mason St., Room 400 San Francisco, Calif. 94102 1531 4th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 2804 Rio Grande Austin, Texas 78705 448 Beacon Street Boston, Massachusetts 02215 730 Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 292 Somerset St. West Ottawa, Ontario 1168 St. Catherine St. W., Suite 101 Montreal, P.Q. H3B 1K1 4857 Main Street Vancouver. B.C. V5V 3R9 AUSTRALIA 28-30 Restormal Avenue Fullarton, So. Australia 5063 37 Cleaver Street Perth, West. Australia 6000 1 Lee Street Sydney, New South Wales 2000 724 Inkerman Road Caulfield North, Victoria 3161 NEW ZEALAND 44 Queen Street, 2nd Floor Auckland 1 RHODESIA 210 Kirrie Bldgs. Abercorn St. Bulawayo 3730 Lindell Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63108 926 “C” Street San Diego, California 92101 1116 Elmwood Buffalo, New York 14222 1607 N.E. 41st Street Portland, Oregon 97232 143 Nenue Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96821 SOUTH AFRICA 99 Polly Street Johannesburg Garmor House 127 Plein Street Cape Town 224 Central House Cnr Central & Pretorius Sts. Pretoria Mariahilferstrasse 88 A/Stg. 3/I/9 1070 Vienna 2007 “O” Street Sacramento, Calif. 95814 College House 57 College Lane Durban FRANCE Celebrity Centre 58, rue de Londres 75008 Paris 1809 West 8th Street Los Angeles, Calif. 90057