B O A R D   P O L I C Y   L E T T E R
26 JANUARY 1972R
ISSUE IV
REVISED AND REISSUED 11 OCTOBER 1974 AS BPL
Remimeo
Scn Orgs	CANCELS
Academies	HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 JANUARY 1972
Level 0	ISSUE IV
Students	SAME TITLE

SCIENTOLOGY  LEVEL  0  STANDARD

ACADEMY CHECKSHEET

( HRS )  Hubbard  Recognised  Scientologist

	THIS COURSE CONTAINS KNOWLEDGE  VITAL TO SUCCESSFUL LIVING.

PREREQUISITE:	(1) 	Word Clearing Method 1 with all words
				taken to FN.
			(2)	Applied Scholastics Basic Study Manual
				( Unless the student has already done a
				non- superliterate Student Hat or PRD &
				M1 with each word fully cleared to FN.)

ORGANIZATION:_____________________________

STUDENT’S NAME:__________________________ POST:___________________

DATE STARTED:____________________ DATE COMPLETED:______________

	This checksheet contains the vital survival knowledge of Scientology Sub-Zero and Zero Level technology.

	It covers the technology dealing with “memory” and “communication”.

REQUIREMENTS: 

	Full Study Tech is to be used throughout this course.  Standard classroom Word Clearing methods are required.  The course is done fast flow per HCO PL 31 Aug 74 Issue II  Fast Flow Training Reinstated.

CERTIFICATE: 

	Completion of this checksheet entitles you to a “Provisional Hubbard Recognized Scientologist Certificate”.  A Provisional Certificate is only valid for one year at which time it must be validated.

	When you have completed through to Class IV training you should Intern in this Organization under the professional guidance of our Technical Experts.  When you can then apply the processes of the grade flublessly you will be awarded your full permanent Hubbard Recognised Scientologist Certificate.

	For Classification a minimum of completing one person on the Expanded Grade is required.  This is best done on a 3 way Co-Audit where student A audit student B who audits student C who audits student A.

	Study the data in checksheet order.  Do not go past a word you do not understand.  Use a dictionary and for Scientology (R) terms,  use a Scientology dictionary and refer to the Symbols and Definitions list (HCOB 23 Aug 65 - Abbreviations and Symbols of Dianetics (R) and Scientology).

	*  = 100% knowledge of and understanding and ability to apply.

	Not starred = read and listened to the data and understanding of.

	A demonstration of any of the materials may be requested to give you full understanding of them.

	The checksheet is one time through materials and practical.

WORD CLEARING METHOD NO. 1 TO END PHENOMENA HAS BEEN DONE, WITH ALL WORDS TAKEN TO FN.   

________________

A.  	ORIENTATION SECTION	                             													
       * 	HCO PL 15 Jun 70  	Keeping Scientology working 	____	____	___
       * 	HCO PL 17 Jun 70  	Technical Degrades			____	____	___
       * 	HCO PL 11 Jun 64  	New Student Data			____	____	___
          	HCOB   25 Jun 71  	The Three Barriers to Study		____	____	___
       * 	HCO PL 31 May 68  	Auditors					____	____	___
	HCO PL  31 Aug 74  	Fast Flow Training Re- instated		____	____	___

B.	POINT  SYSTEM

	BPL 17 May 71 RA II  
	Rev. 10 Jun 74   	Study Points & Conditions		____	____	___

C.	GENERAL  COURSE  DATA

       * 	HCO PL  27 May 65  	Processing				____	____	___
       * 	HCO PL  15 Dec 65  	Student’s Guide to Acceptable
                                             	Behaviour					____	____	___
       * 	HCO PL  14 Feb 65  	Safeguarding Technology
          		Reissued   7 Jun 67			____	____	___
          	HCO PL  27 Sep 66  	The Anti- Social Personality		____	____	___
       * 	HCO PL  22 Nov 67  	Out Tech					____	____	___
       * 	HCO PL    8 Jun 70  	Student Auditing				____	____	___

D.	BOOKS    ( to be read by end of course )

	Dianetics  55							____ 	____	___
	Self Analysis							____ 	____	___
	Axioms  &  Logics  ( Axioms Section )				____ 	____	___

E.	CHARTS

	BPL  25 Jun 70R  	Classification  &  Gradation Chart  
		Level 0  Section			 	____ 	____	___
	HCOB  25 Sep 71R  	Tone Scale in Full
            	Rev. 4 April 74				____ 	____	___
	DRILL :
	REF:  BTB  20 July 74  	Auditor Expertise Drills
                                                	Series No. 1 Basic Drills	
	ED  3  Observing the Obvious  Unbullbaited				____ 	____	___
	ED  4  Observing the Obvious  Bullbaited				____ 	____	___
	ED  5  Learning the Tone Scale  Unbullbaited			____ 	____	___
	ED  6  Learning the Tone Scale  Bullbaited				____ 	____	___
	ED  7  Obnosis and the Tone Scale  Unbullbaited			____ 	____	___
	ED  8  Obnosis and the Tone Scale  Bullbaited			____ 	____	___

F.	CODES

       * 	HCO PL  14 Oct 68  	Auditors Code AD18			____ 	____	___
       * 	HCO PL   2 Nov 68  	Auditors Code AD18 Additions		____ 	____	___
	CLAY DEMO :  Each point of the Auditors Code.			____ 	____	___

G.	AUDITOR  ADMIN  SECTION

	BTB  6 Nov 72   	Auditor Admin series No. 14
                                              	The Worksheets				____ 	____	___
	BTB  6 Nov 72   	Auditor Admin Series No. 13
                                           	Auditors Report Form			____ 	____	___
	BTB  6 Nov 72   	Auditor Admin Series No. 12
                                           	Summary Report Form			____	____	___
	BTB  6 Nov 72   	Auditor Admin Series No. 11
                                           	Exam Report				____	____	___
	BTB  6 Nov 72   	Auditor Admin Series No.  7
                                           	Folder Summary				____	____	___
	BTB  24 Apr 69R 	PC Assessment Sheet
            	Rev. 8 Sept 74				____	____	___
	BPL  23 Apr 68   	Parent/Guardian Consent Form		____	____	___
	DRILL :  	Make up a “ Dummy “ PC Folder with all the proper 
                            	forms and worksheets filled out and in  correct order
                            	in the folder						____	____	___
	DO IT :   	Check your PC’s folder to see if the folder summary
                           	is up to date and accurate ; if it is not, then bring it up
                           	to date accurately 					____	____	___

H.      TRs

	HCOB    16 Aug 71  Training Drills Modernised			____	____	___
	CLAY DEMO:  Axiom 28						____	____	___
	
	Listen to an LRH Demo tape of an Auditing Session before
            and while drilling each TR. Listen specifically for the aspects
            of TR 0 ( presence ), TR 1, TR 2, TR 3 and TR 4 for each Tr
	as you get to it.

      * 	OT TR 0	____	____	____
      * 	TR 0	____	____	____
      * 	TR 0  BB	____	____	____
      * 	TR 1	____	____	____
      * 	TR 2	____	____	____
      * 	TR 3	____	____	____
      * 	TR 4	____	____	____

I.	FALSE__TA

      * 	HCOB  24 Oct   71  	False TA					____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  12 Nov 71  	False TA Addition 1			____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  15 Feb 72   	False TA Addition 2  			____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  18 Feb 72R 	False TA Addition 3			____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  29 Feb 72R 	False TA Checklist
           	Rev.   23 Nov 73				____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  23 Nov 73  	Dry and Wet Hands make
                                         	False TA					____	____	___
         	DRILL :    Identifying and handling False TA.			____	____	___

J.	FN_DATA

      * 	HCOB  21 Oct 68  	Floating Needle				____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  11 Feb 66  	Free needles & how to get them
                                        	on a PC					____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  21 Sep 66  	ARC Break Needle			____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  20 Feb 70   	Floating Needles and End 
                                         	Phenomena				____	____	___
      *  	HCOB   8  Oct 70   	Persistent FN				____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  21 Mar 74  	End Phenomena				____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  14 Mar 71  	FN Everything				____	____	___
	CLAY DEMO :   A full EP showing PC’s Bank etc.			____	____	___

K.	METER_DATA

      * 	The Book  “Introducing the E- Meter”				____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  14 Oct 68  	“ You must never never . . .”		____	____	___
         	HCOB  11 May 69  	Meter Trim Check			____	____	___
         	BTB     14 Jan 63  	Rings causing Rockslams		____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  18 Mar 74  	E- Meter Sensitivity Errors		____	____	___
	DRILL :
	BTB    16 Jun 71   	Advanced E - Meter Drills
                                          	Trim Check Drill				____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  11 May 69R 	Meter Trim Check
                                          	Rev. 8 Jul 78				____	____	___
L.	METER_DRILLS

	HCOB  23 May 71 IX  	Metering					____	____	___
      * 	HCOB  10 Dec 65   	E - Meter Coaching			____	____	___

	* 	1.   ____    ____    ___	* 10.    ____    ____    ___	* 19.    ____   ____   ___
	* 	2.   ____    ____    ___	* 11.	____    ____    ___	* 20.	____   ____   ___
	* 	3.   ____    ____    ___	* 12.	____    ____    ___	* 21.	____   ____   ___
	* 	4.   ____    ____    ___	* 13.	____    ____    ___	
	* 	5.   ____    ____    ___	* 14.	____    ____    ___
	* 	6.   ____    ____    ___	* 15.	____    ____    ___
	* 	7.   ____    ____    ___	* 16.	____    ____    ___
	* 	8.   ____    ____    ___	* 17.	____    ____    ___
	* 	9.   ____    ____    ___	* 18.	____    ____    ___

M.     	AUDITOR MUST NOTS

       * 	HCOB   7 Apr 64   	All Levels Q & A				____   ____   ___
       * 	HCOB   3 Aug 65   	Auditor Goofs - Blowdown
                                          	Interuptions				____   ____   ___
       * 	HCOB   5 Feb 66 II  	“Letting the PC Itsa”
                                         	The Properly Trained Auditor		____   ____   ___
       * 	HCOB   7 May 69   	5 GAEs					____   ____   ___
       * 	HCOB 17 May 69   	TRs & Dirty Needles			____   ____   ___
          	BTB      4 July 69   	Auditing of OT III Preclears		____   ____   ___
          	BTB    17 July 69   	Flagrant Auditing Errors			____   ____   ___
       * 	CLAY DEMO : 	(a)  	The 5 GAEs.				____   ____   ___
                                       	(b)	The effect on the PC of
                                         	Blowdown interuption.			____   ____   ___
                                        	(c)	Three examples of  Q & A.		____   ____   ___

N.	INDICATORS

       * 	HCOB  29 Jul  64    	Good Indicators at Lower Levels		____   ____   ___
       * 	BTB    26  Apr 69    	Bad Indicators at Lower Levels		____   ____   ___
          	DRILLS: BTB 20 Jul 74	Auditor Expertise Drills Series No. 1
                                         	Basic Auditing Drills
		ED 13    	Unbullbaited				____   ____   ___
		ED 14    	Bullbaited					____   ____   ___

O.      	MODEL SESSION & RUDIMENTS

      * 	HCO PL  4 Apr 72R   	Ethics and Study Tech
         		Rev. 7 Apr 72				____   ____   ___
      * 	HCOB  14  Nov 65   	Clearing Commands			____   ____   ___
      * 	BTB   2 May 72R   	Clearing Commands
         		Rev. 10 Jun 74				____   ____   ___
      * 	BTB  18 Nov 68R 	Model Session				____   ____   ___ 
      * 	HCOB  15 Aug 69   	Flying Ruds				____   ____   ___
      * 	BTB  11 Apr 74   	Handling ARC Breaks			____   ____   ___
      * 	HCOB  23 Aug 71   	C/S Series No. 1
                                           	Auditors Rights				____   ____   ___
	DRILLS: BTB 15 Dec 74 Auditor Expertise Drills Series No. 2
                                           	Basic Sessions Actions Drills
            	ED 21   	Flying Ruds Unbullbaited		____   ____   ___
            	ED 22   	Flying Ruds Bullbaited			____   ____   ___

	DO IT :   Fly Ruds on another student; turn your PC’s folder in
                            to the Academy C/S when done.				____   ____   ___

P.	THEORY OF THE COMM CYCLE 

          	HCOB   6 Nov  64   	Styles of Auditing			____   ____   ___
      * 	HCOB 30 Apr  71   	Auditing Comm Cycle			____   ____   ___
      * 	HCOB 23 May 71 II   	The 2 Parts of Auditing			____   ____   ___
      * 	HCOB 23 May 71 III  	The Three Important
                                          	Comm Lines				____   ____   ___
      * 	HCOB 23 May 71 IV   	Communication Cycles
                                          	Within the Auditing Comm Cycle	____   ____   ___
      * 	HCOB 23 May 71 V    	The Communication 
                                          	Cycle in Auditing				____   ____   ___
      * 	HCOB 12 Jan 59   	Tone of voice acknowledgements      	____   ____   ___
      * 	HCOB 17 Oct 62   	Auditor Failure to Understand  		____   ____   ___
      * 	HCOB   7 Apr 65   	Premature Acknowledgements 		____   ____   ___
      * 	HCO PL 1 Jul 65   	Comm Cycle Additives			____   ____   ___
         	HCOB 29 Sep 65   	Cyclical & Non- Cyclical
                                        	Process Conclusions			____   ____   ___

Q.	TAPES

      * 	24 May 62	E-Meter Data: Instant Reads 
		Part I					____   ____   ___
      * 	24 May 62	E-Meter Data: Instant Reads 
		Part II					____   ____   ___
      *  	25 July 63	Comm Cycles in Auditing		____   ____   ___
      *  	6 Aug 63	Auditing Comm Cycles			____   ____   ___
      * 	20 Aug 63          	Itsa Line					____   ____   ___
      * 	21 Aug 63   	Itsa Line ( Cont’d )			____   ____   ___
      * 	6 Feb 64   	The Communication Cycle in 
		Auditing					____   ____   ___
	CLAY DEMO :	1. 	The Auditing Comm Cycle and what 
	   	happens in the bank.			____   ____   ___
		2. 	Axiom 28. ( Ref: HCO PL 7 Apr 74  
		Ethics and Study Tech. )			____   ____   ___
		3. 	The purpose of Level 0.			____   ____   ___
		4. 	The Full End Phenomena of Grade 0
                	Ability Attained.				____   ____   ___

R.	ARC STRAIGHTWIRE PROCESSES

	NOTE: See HCOB 17 Mar 74  TWC Checksheets. “ TWC Using 
	Wrong Questions “ before studying, Drilling and using the processes.
	USE:  BTB 9 Oct 71R   ARC Straightwire Drills			____   ____   ___

	REMEMBER SOMETHING
      *  	BOOK:  Dianetics  55!  	Chapter on Six Basic Processes		____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-1							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-2							____   ____   ___
	RECALL A TIME

      * 	HCOB  16 Feb 59   	Staff Auditors Conference		____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-3							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-4							____   ____   ___

	COMM RECALL PROCESS

       * 	HCOB  20 Oct 59   	An Experimental Process			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-5							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-6							____   ____   ___

	THE ONLY BASIC AFFINITY PROCESS

       * 	HCOB  20 Oct 59   	An Experimental Process			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-7							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-8							____   ____   ___

	EXHAUSTION

       * 	HCOB  20 Oct 59   	An Experimental Process			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-9							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-10							____   ____   ___

	PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE
       * 	HCOB  16 Feb 59   	HGC Processes for Those
                                          	Trained in Engram Running
                                       	( applicable parts only )			____   ____   ___
       * 	HCOB  16 Feb 59   	Staff Auditors Conference		____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-11							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-12							____   ____   ___

	FORGETTING SIX WAY BRACKET

       * 	HCOB  8 Apr 58    	A Pair of Processes			____   ____   ___
	PAB  143								____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-13							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-14							____   ____   ___

	CAUSE ELEMENTARY STRAIGHTWIRE

       * 	HCOB  9 Mar 60   	Expansion of OT-3A Procedure
                                        	Step Two HGC Allowed Processes 	____   ____   ___
       * 	HCOB 20 Apr 60   	Processes					____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-15							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-16							____   ____   ___ 

	DUPLICATION STRAIGHTWIRE   

       * 	HCOB  9 Mar 60   	Expansion of OT-3A Procedure
                                      	Step Two HGC Allowed Processes 	____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-17							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-18							____   ____   ___

	KNOW TO MYSTERY RECALL PROCESS

       * 	HCOB  20 Oct 59   	An Experimental Process			____   ____   ___
       * 	BOOK: Scientology 0 - 8	Expanded Know to Mystery Scale	____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-19							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-20							____   ____   ___

	SELF ANALYSIS

	BOOK: Self Analysis *  	and run per instructions
                                                   	in book, Lists 1 - 12			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-21							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-22							____   ____   ___

	ARC STRAIGHTWIRE TRIPLES

       * 	HCOB  27 Sep 68   	ARC Straightwire				____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-23							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-24							____   ____   ___

	HAVINGNESS

	BTB     4 Jan 72R   	0 - IV  Expanded Grades
                                            	Processes - Triples Part A
                                            	ARC Straightwire				
			Rev. 28 June 74
			Havingness				____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-25							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-26							____   ____   ___
S.	LEVEL 0 PROCESSES

	BTB   5  Jan 72R   	Grade 0 Processes
	USE: BTB   9 Oct 71R    	Level 0 Drills				____   ____   ___

	R2- 31  BEINGNESS PROCESSING

       * 	BOOK  Creation of Human Ability  - R2-31				____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-27				  			____   ____   ___
		TR  00-28							____   ____   ___

	AXIOM 51 COMM PROCESSING

       * 	PAB 56								____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-29							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-30							____   ____   ___

	PAB 54 COMM PROCESS
       * 	PAB 54								____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-31							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-32							____   ____   ___

	AN OBVIOUS BASIC PROCESS

       * 	HCOB  17 Mar 60   	Standardised Sessions			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-33							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-34							____   ____   ___

	AN AFFINITY PROCESS

       * 	HCOB   4 May 59   	An Affinity Process			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-35							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-36							____   ____   ___

	IN SEQUENCE

       * 	HCOB  2 MAR 61   	New Pre-hav Command			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-37							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-38							____   ____   ___

	UNIVERSE PROCESSING

       * 	HCOB  25 Sep 59   	HAS Co-Audit				____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-39							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-40							____   ____   ___

	LOCATIONAL BODY COMM

       * 	HCOB  21 Jul 59   	HGC Allowed Processes			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-41							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-42							____   ____   ___

	A CLEARING PROCEDURE

       * 	HCOB  21 Jul 59   	HGC Allowed Processes			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-43							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-44							____   ____   ___

	PROCESS S-2

       * 	HCOB  21 Jul 59   	HGC Allowed Processes			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-45							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-46							____   ____   ___

	R2- 60    THE HIDDEN COMMUNICATION

       * 	BOOK: Creation of Human Ability  - R2-60				____   ____   ___
       * 	BOOK: Scientology 0 - 8  						____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-47							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-48   							____   ____   ___

	R2- 60  KNOW TO MYSTERY PROCESS

       *	BOOK: Creation of Human Ability -  R2-60				____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-49							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-50							____   ____   ___

	EXPANDED CDEI COMM PROCESS

       * 	HCOB  13 Oct 59   	DEI Expanded Scale			____   ____   ___
       * 	BOOK: Scientology 0 - 8 						____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-51							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-52							____   ____   ___

	LOCATIONAL COMM PROCESS

       * 	HCOB   7 May 59   	New Process				____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-53							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-54							____   ____   ___

	REMEDY OF COMM SCARCITY

       * 	BOOK: 8 - 8008  ( six levels of processing )				____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-55							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-56							____   ____   ___

	GRADE ZERO TRIPLE

       * 	HCOB  11 Dec 64   	Scientology 0 Processes			____   ____   ___
       * 	HCOB  26 Dec 64   	Routine 0- A  Expanded			____   ____   ___
	BTB       5 Jan 72R 	0 - IV  Expanded Grade
                                          	Processes Triples Part B
                                          	Grade 0 Triple Processes			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-57							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-58							____   ____   ___

	HAVINGNESS

	BTB      5 Jan 72R  	Grade 0 Processes
			Havingness Process			____   ____   ___
	DRILL:	TR  00-59							____   ____   ___
		TR  00-60							____   ____   ___

T.	AUDITING SECTION
	Audit a minimum of one person to Expanded
	Grade 0 Release							____   ____   ___
STUDENT ATTEST : _________________________  DATE: ____________________

ACADEMY  C/S : ____________________________  DATE: ____________________

U.      STUDENT COMPLETION

	I have completed the requirements of this checksheet and I know and can apply this material.

STUDENT ATTEST : _______________________  DATE:  ____________________

V.	SUPERVISOR

	I have trained this student to the best of my ability and he/she has completed the requirements of this checksheet and knows and can 	apply the checksheet data.

SUPERVISOR : ____________________________  DATE:  ____________________

W.      STUDENT ATTEST AT C&A 

	I attest :

	A.	I have enroled on the course.

	B.	I have paid for the course.

	C.	I have studied and understand all the materials 
                    	on the checksheet.

	D.	I have done all the drills on this checksheet.

	E.	I can produce an Expanded Grade 0 Release.

STUDENT ATTEST : ________________________  DATE:  ___________________

C&A :  _______________________________________

X.	CERTS AND AWARDS

	Provisional Class 0 Certificate issued.

C&A : _____________________________________  DATE:  ____________________

Route to Course Admin for filing in the students folder.

Training and Services Aide
Revised by
W/O Ron Shafran, CS-4
and Flag Mission 1234
Reissued as BPL
by Flag Mission 1234
I/C:  CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd:  Molly Harlow
Authorised by AVU
BDCS:HH:BW:RS:AL:MH:mh	for the
Copyright © 1972, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965
REISSUED 15 JUNE 1970
Remimeo                                       (Corrected per Flag Issue 28.1.73)
Sthil Students
Assn/Org Sec Hat
HCO Sec Hat
Case Sup Hat
Ds of P Hat
Ds of T Hat
Staff Member Hat
Franchise
(issued May 1965)

Note:     Neglect of this Pol Ltr has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all out International effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. “Quickie grades” entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not “entirely a tech matter” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2 year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it. 

ALL LEVELS

KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING
HCO Sec or Communicator Hat Check
on all personnel and new personnel
as taken on.

	We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly workable technology. 

	The only thing now is getting the technology applied. 

	If you can’t get the technology applied then you can’t deliver what’s promised. It’s as simple as that. If you can get the technology applied, you can deliver what’s promised. 

	The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is “no results”. Trouble spots occur only where there are “no results”. Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are “no results” or “bad results”. 

	Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate success is assured if the technology is applied. 

	So it is the task of the Assn or Org Sec, the HCO Sec, the Case Supervisor, the D of P, the D of T and all staff members to get the correct technology applied. 

Getting the correct technology applied consists of: 

One: Having the correct technology. 

Two: Knowing the technology. 

Three: Knowing it is correct. 

Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology. 

Five: Applying the technology. 

Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied. 

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology. 

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology. 

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application. 

One above has been done. 

Two has been achieved by many. 

Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a proper manner and observing that it works that way. 

Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world. 

Five is consistently accomplished daily. 

Six is achieved by instructors and supervisors consistently. 

Seven is done by a few but is a weak point. 

Eight is not worked on hard enough. 

Nine is impeded by the “reasonable” attitude of the not quite bright. 

Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity. 

Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area. 

	The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. (d) The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront good or bad and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad. 

	Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very alert to Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.
 
	In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”. 

	On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable “technology”. By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular” “egotistical” and “undemocratic”. It very well may be. But it is also a survival point And I don’t see that popular measures, self- abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorse degraded novels, self- abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax. 

	Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had no supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that  in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-ordination of what has been done, which will be valuable-only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications. 

	The contributions that were worth while in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defence, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture. 

	We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact-the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve-psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc, ad infinitum. 

	So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck and good sense, and refuse to sink back into it again. See that Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above are ruthlessly followed and we will never be stopped. Relax them, get reasonable about it and we will perish. 

	So far, while keeping myself in complete communication with all suggestions, I have not failed on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten in areas I could supervise closely. But it’s not good enough for just myself and a few others to work at this. 

	Whenever this control as per Seven, Eight. Nine and Ten has been relaxed the whole organizational area has failed. Witness Elizabeth, N.l., Wichita, the early organizations and groups. They crashed only because I no longer did Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. Then, when they were all messed up you saw the obvious “reasons” for failure. But ahead of that they ceased to deliver and that involved them in other reasons. 

	The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a Hell-and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every Man, Woman and Child on the planet. That is Bank. That is the result of Collective Thought Agreement. The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by “public opinion” media. Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves. 

	Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is only the aberrated group, the mob, that is destructive. 

	When you don’t do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten actively, you are working for the Bank dominated mob. For it will surely, surely (a) introduce incorrect technology and swear by it, (b) apply technology as incorrectly as possible, (c) open the door to any destructive idea, and (d) encourage incorrect application. 

	It’s the Bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing. It’s the Bank that says we must fail. 

	So just don’t play that tune. Do Seven. Eight, Nine and Ten and you will knock out of your road all the future thorns. 

	Here’s an actual example in which a senior executive had to interfere because of a pc spin:   A Case Supervisor told Instructor A to have Auditor B run Process X on Preclear C. Auditor B afterwards told Instructor A that “It didn’t work.” Instructor A was weak on Three above and didn’t really believe in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. So Instructor A told the Case Supervisor “Process X didn’t work on Preclear C.” Now this strikes directly at each of One to Six above in Preclear C, Auditor B, Instructor A and the Case Supervisor. It opens the door to the introduction of “new technology” and to failure. 

	What happened here? Instructor A didn’t jump down Auditor B’s throat, that’s all that happened. This is what he should have done: Grabbed the Auditor’s report and looked it over, When a higher executive on this case did so she found what the Case Supervisor and the rest missed: that. Process X increased Preclear C’s TA to 25 TA divisions for the session but that near session end Auditor B Qed and Aed with a cognition and abandoned Process X while it still gave high TA and went off running one of Auditor B’s own manufacture, which nearly spun Preclear C. Auditor B’s IQ on examination turned out to be about 75. Instructor A was found to have huge ideas of how you must never invalidate anyone, even a lunatic. The Case Supervisor was found to be “too busy with admin to have any time for actual cases”. 

	All right, there’s an all too typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: “That process X didn’t work.” Instructor A: “What exactly did you do wrong?” Instant attack. “Where’s your auditor’s report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TA when you stopped Process X. What did you do?” Then the Pc wouldn’t have come close to a spin and all four of these would have retained certainty. 

	In a year, I had four instances in one small group where the correct process recommended was reported not to have worked. But on review found that each one had (a) increased the TA, (b) had been abandoned, and (c) had been falsely reported as unworkable. Also, despite this abuse, in each of these four cases the recommended, correct process cracked the case. Yet they were reported as not having worked! 

	Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more deadly as every time instruction in correct technology is flubbed, then the resulting error, uncorrected in the auditor, is perpetuated on every pc that auditor audits thereafter. So Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of cases. 

	Here’s an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating student “because he gets more TA on pcs than any other student on the course!” Figures of 435 TA divisions a session are reported. “Of course his model session is poor but it’s just knack he has” is also included in the recommendation. A careful review is undertake because nobody at levels O to IV is going to get that much TA on pcs. It is found that this student was never taught to read an E-Meter dial! And no instructor observed his handling of a meter and it was not discovered that he “overcompensated” nervously swinging the TA 2 or 3 divisions beyond where it needed to go to place the needle at “set”. So everyone was about to throw away standard processes and model session because this one student “got such remarkable TA”. They only read the reports and listened to the brags and never looked at this student. The pcs in actual fact were making slightly less than average gain, impeded by a rough model session and misworded processes. Thus, what was making the pcs win (actual Scientology) was hidden under a lot of departures and errors. 

	I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and running a lot of off-beat whole track on other students after course hours. The academy students were in a state of electrification on all these new experiences and weren’t quickly brought under control and the student himself never was given the works on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. A hard, tough instructor at that moment could have salvaged two squirrels and saved the life of a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever they pleased. 

	Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension. Usually the non-comprehension is not of Scientology but some earlier contact with an off-beat humanoid practice which in its turn was not understood. 

	When people can’t get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree. The most trouble in the past two years came from orgs where an executive in each could not assimilate straight Scientology under instruction in Scientology they were unable to define terms or demonstrate examples of principles. And the orgs where they were got into plenty of trouble. And worse, it could not be straightened out easily because neither one of these people could or would duplicate instructions. hence, a debacle resulted in two places, directly traced to failures of instruction earlier. So proper instruction is vital. The D of T and his Instructors and all Scientology Instructors must be merciless in getting Four, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten into effective action. That one student, dumb and impossible though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may yet some day be the cause of untold upset because nobody was interested enough to make sure Scientology got home to him. 

	With what we know now, there is no student we enrol who cannot be properly trained. As an instructor, one should be very alert to slow progress and should turn the sluggards inside out personally. No system will do it, only you or me with our sleeve rolled up can crack the back of bad studenting and we can only do it on an individual student, never on a whole class only. He’s slow = something is awful wrong. Take fast action to correct it. Don’t wait until next week. By then he’s got other messes stuck to him. If you can’t graduate them with their good sense appealed to and wisdom shining graduate them in such a state of shock they’ll have nightmares if they contemplate squirreling. Then experience will gradually bring about Three in them and they’ll know better than to chase butterflies when they should be auditing. 

	When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe- never permit an “open-minded” approach. If they’re going to quit let then quit fast. If they enroled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us- win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It’s a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive-and even they have a hard time. We’ll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don’t make students into good Scientologists and that let’s everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in he eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she’ll win and we’ll all win. Humour her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, “You’re here so you’re a Scientologist Now we’re going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead that incapable.” Fitting that into the economics of the situation and lack of adequate time and you see the cross we have to bear. 

	But we won’t have to bear it forever. The bigger we get the more economics and time we will have to do our job. And the only things which can prevent us from getting that big fast are areas in from One to Ten. Keep those in mind and we’ll be able to grow. Fast. And as we grow our shackles will be less and less. Failing to keep One to  Ten, will make us grow less. 

	So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High Priests. It’s our possible failure to retain and practise our technology. 

	An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with ferocity instances of “unworkability”. They must uncover what did happen, what was run and what was done or not done.                        

	If you have One and Two, you can only acquire Three for all by making sure of all the rest. 

	We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better. 

	The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depends on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. 

	This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. 

	Remember, this is a our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don’t muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. 

	Do them and we’ll win.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1965, 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1970

Remimeo
Applies to all
SHs and	URGENT AND
Academies	IMPORTANT
Franchises

TECHNICAL DEGRADES

(This PL and HCO PL Feb 7, 1965 must be made part of every study pack as the first items and must be listed on checksheets. )

Any checksheet in use or in stock which carries on it any degrading statement must be destroyed and issued without qualifying statements.

Example: Level 0 to IV Checksheets SH carry “A. Background Material—This section is included as an historical background, but has much interest and value to the student. Most of the processes are no longer used, having been replaced by more modern technology. The student is only required to read this material and ensure he leaves no misunderstood.” This heading covers such vital things as TRs, Op Pro by Dup! The statement is a falsehood.

These checksheets were not approved by myself, all the material of the Academy and SH courses IS in use.

Such actions as this gave us “Quickie Grades”, ARC Broke the field and downgraded the Academy and SH Courses.

A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a full investigation of the background of any person found guilty, will be activated in the case of anyone committing the following HIGH CRIMES.

1. 	Abbreviating an official Course in Dianetics and Scientology so as to lose the full theory, processes and effectiveness of the subjects.

2. 	Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labelling any material “background” or “not used now” or “old” or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using, and applying the data in which he is being trained.

3. 	Employing after 1 Sept 1970 any checksheet for any course not authorized by myself and the SO Organizing Bureau Flag.

4. 	Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile any such comments as “historical”, “background”, “not used”, “old”, etc. or VERBALLY STATING IT TO STUDENTS.

5. 	Permitting a pc to attest to more than one grade at a time on the pc’s own determinism without hint or evaluation.

6. 	Running only one process for a grade between 0 to IV.

7. 	Failing to use all processes for a level.

8. 	Boasting as to speed of delivery in a session, such as “I put in Grade zero in 3 minutes.” Etc.

9. 	Shortening time of application of auditing for financial or laborsaving considerations.

10. 	Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology to use or impede its use or shorten its materials or its application.

REASON: The effort to get students through courses and get pcs processed in orgs was considered best handled by reducing materials or deleting processes from grades. The pressure exerted to speed up student completions and auditing completions was mistakenly answered by just not delivering.

The correct way to speed up a student’s progress is by using 2 way comm and applying the study materials to students.

The best way to really handle pcs is to ensure they make each level fully before going on to the next and repairing them when they do not.

The puzzle of the decline of the entire Scientology network in the late 60s is entirely answered by the actions taken to shorten time in study and in processing by deleting materials and actions.

Reinstituting full use and delivery of Dianetics and Scientology is the answer to any recovery.

The product of an org is well taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. When the product vanishes, so does the org. The orgs must survive for the sake of this planet.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 11 JUNE 1964
Sthil Students

NEW STUDENTS DATA
STAR RATED FOR NEW STUDENTS

Tape Passes

	On those live lectures you hear, when you take the Friday tape examination and keep your exam paper when it is handed back, and present it to Theory as evidence, any live lecture you have so heard is credited on your check sheet by Theory where the lecture appears on the check sheet. 

	Not all the lectures I give appear later on check sheets but many do and you should get credit for those you have heard. 

	If you have a Friday exam paper on any lecture you have heard live and the grade is above 90% for star rated and above 75% for a 75, any grade for a zero rate, if the lecture appears as a tape on your check sheets it will be marked off as passed and initialled by a Theory Instructor. 

Auditing Assignments

	In auditing before the Level VI Co-audit, it is customary to split up teams that will eventually co-audit to OT. 

	The reasons for this are 

	1. 	Auditing skill tends to become adapted to one pc and deteriorate. This does not                          		make a good pro, it makes only a co- auditor. I’m making you into a pro, not a       		co auditor regardless of classification status. I can’t do that by giving you just      		the pc you  are already educated to run. You’d be a one pc auditor. 

	2. 	Mutual withholds develop in teams and restrain auditing results. 

	3. 	Your auditing skill tends to look better or worse than it is. 

	We don’t even wholly guarantee you and your co-auditor that you will co-audit in the Level Vl Co-audit for one team member may be Case type A and the other B. A Case type A can run through anything. A Case type B stops at a comma. Thus one gets too far out of pace with the other and it’s just too hard on one member of the team who would be, of course, the Type B and already in trouble. It would be selfish indeed of a Type A to force a Type B to run GPMs far beyond where he or she has had them run. We will try to put the team together in this Level VI Co-audit and mostly do but this AB factor is a technical one and we can’t do anything about it short of good auditing. 

Student Rules

	A lot of students come a cropper on the rules and try to carry on without concurrence. 

	You are only here for a few months. In your hands is your next multi-trillion years. 

	The rules are there to get you through. Breaking them, in my opinion, is too pricey. 

Rapidity of Progress

	A few new students arrive here in a high state of “know it all, just want a few new gimmicks”. 

	Students who have this state of mind just don’t learn or progress. And they really get stuck in. We’re not doing it to them. They are trying to learn over the top of their own postulate that they already know it (when they don’t) and so get into a ridge. They’re not stuck in the course. They’re stuck in this conflict. 

	In the first place, no new student at Saint Hill has ever been known to give a standard session on arrival, despite all the data being available. But they don’t know enough about auditing to know whether they’re doing well or not, much less know how to audit. Factually they usually look pretty pitiful. There they are making Gross Auditing Errors in an avalanche, missing comm cycles, feet in the pc’s face with their meter upside down, telling the Class Vl auditor who is his Instructor “I know all about it. We had a course in Slobovia much better than this one. The pcs audited the auditor and it . . . .”

	Well you can’t blame the instructor if he seems to be having a hard time to keep from laughing in the new student’s face. It’s only their courtesy that keeps them from reaching over and connecting the unconnected cans this new genius has failed to plug into the meter as a fitting touche. 

	Some auditors trained elsewhere with great ARC but precious little “do it”, don’t have enough training to know they aren’t trained. And it’s always the very worst trained auditors who how; the loudest about how they don’t need to know. The majority relaxedly study and improve their skill, get results and there it is.

	I myself periodically study auditing and put a polish on my own skill. I don’t have to say “I don’t know”, but I’m not so arrogant as to believe I’m above knowing how to do things. So if every year or two I can study how to audit without going into a long rigmarole about how I’m above all that, I can reasonably expect others to have a sane view of their own skill too. Any skill can be improved—one can know more about an subject—unless one has already decided he or she already knows all about it. 

	The successful progress of a student is inversely proportional to the student preconception of knowing it already. An arrogant assumption of total knowing without inspection is the surest way to make no progress. 

	One does or does not know the data before him. That’s elementary. Why should it become involved with emotionalism? 

	The fast student is not concerned with necessities to maintain status by asserting how much he or she already knows. The fast student is only interested in knowing what he does not know, studying it and then knowing that he knows it. 

	The slow student is so busy putting on that he knows that he never finds out he doesn’t in fact know. To do this before a lot of experts such as Saint Hill Instructors seems pretty pointless. 

	Results today are by the text book. Lack of results are always attended by departures. One can or cannot get results with auditing. This means that one is or is not doing a text book job. 

	In our case the text book has 14 years of hard won experience behind it. So text book auditing gets the best results. It’s that simple. 

	The statement “I know all about Scientology but I don’t get very good results” is a pretty silly statement today. It’s saying in fact “I pretend to more than I know and the flubs show up in my results”. 

	Well, that’s getting right down to the reasons for slow progress and calling a spade a spade, but it’s awful true. It’s really the only reason back of slow progress on course. 

	The speed with which you complete your course and get to OT is entirely regulated by the speed with which you discover there’s something here to learn. 

	Most students handle this very early. I’m sure you will. 

	I give you my good wishes for a fast progress.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JUNE 1971 R

Remimeo	REVISED 25 NOVEMBER 1974
Tech & Qual
All Students
Supervisors	 Word Clearing Series 3R
Supervisor’s Course
Cramming
Word Clearers

BARRIERS TO STUDY

There are three different sets of physiological and mental reactions that come from 3 different aspects of study. They are three different sets of symptoms.

( 1 ) Education in the absence of the mass in which the technology will be involved is very hard on the student.

It actually makes him feel squashed. Makes him feel bent, sort of spinny, sort of dead, bored, exasperated.

If he is studying the doingness of something in which the mass is absent this will be the result.

Photographs help and motion pictures would do pretty good as they are a sort of promise or hope of the mass but the printed page and the spoken word are not a substitute for a tractor if he’s studying about tractors.

You have to understand this data in its purity—and that is that educating a person in a mass that they don’t have and which isn’t available produces physiological reactions. That is what I am trying to teach you.

It’s just a fact.

You’re trying to teach this fellow all about tractors and you’re not giving him any tractors—well he’s going to wind up with a face that feels squashed, with headaches and with his stomach feeling funny. He’s going to feel dizzy from time to time and very often his eyes are going to hurt.

It’s a physiological datum that has to do with processing and the field of the mind.

You could therefore expect the greatest incidence of suicide or illness in that field of education most devoted to studying absent masses.

This one of studying the something without its mass ever being around produces the most distinctly recognizable reactions.

If a child felt sick in the field of study and it were traced back to this one, the positive remedy would be to supply the mass—the object or a reasonable substitute— and it would clear it up.

(2) There is another series of physiological phenomena that exist which is based on the fact of too steep a study gradient.

That’s another source of physiological study reaction because of too steep a gradient.

It is a sort of a confusion or a reelingness that goes with this one.

You’ve hit too steep a gradient.

There was too much of a jump because he didn’t understand what he was doing and he jumped to the next thing and that was too steep and he went too fast and he will assign all of his difficulties to this new thing.

Now differentiate here—because gradients sounds terribly like the 3rd one of these study hang-ups, definitions—but remember that they are quite distinctly different.

Gradients are more pronounced in the field of doingness but they still hang over into the field of understanding. In gradients however it is the actions we are interested in. We have a plotted course of forward motion of actions. We find he was terribly confused on the second action he was supposed to do. We must assume then that he never really got out of the first one.

The remedy for this one of too steep a gradient is cutting back. Find out when he was not confused on the gradient, then what new action he undertook to do. Find what action he understood well. Just before he was all confused what did he understand well—and then we find out that he didn’t understand it well.

It’s really at the tail end of what he understood and then he went over the gradient you see.

It is most recognizable and most applicable in the field of doingness.

That’s the gradient barrier and one full set of phenomena accompanies that.

(3) There is this third one. An entirely different set of physiological reactions brought about through—a bypassed definition. A bypassed definition gives one a distinctly blank feeling or a washed-out feeling. A not-there feeling and a sort of nervous hysteria will follow in the back of that.

The manifestation of “blow” stems from this 3rd aspect of study which is the misunderstood definition or the not comprehended definition, the undefined word.

That’s the one that produces the blow.

The person doesn’t necessarily blow on these other two—they are not pronouncedly blow phenomena. They are simply physiological phenomena.

This one of the misunderstood definition is so much more important. It’s the make-up of human relations, the mind and subjects. It establishes aptitude and lack of aptitude and it’s what psychologists have been trying to test for years without recognizing what it was.

It’s the definitions of words.

The misunderstood word.

That’s all it goes back to and that produces such a vast panorama of mental effects that it itself is the prime factor involved with stupidity and the prime factor involved with many other things.
If a person didn’t have misunderstoods his talent might or might not be present but his doingness would be present.

We can’t say that Joe would paint as well as Bill if both were unaberrated in the field of art, but we can say that the inability of Joe to paint compared with the ability of Joe to do the motions of painting is dependent exclusively and only upon definitions—exclusively and only upon definitions.

There is some word in the field of art that the person who is inept didn’t define or understand and that is followed by an inability to act in the field of the arts.

That’s very important because it tells you what happens to doingness and that the restoration of doingness depends only upon the restoration of understanding on the misunderstood word—misunderstood definition.

This is very fast processing. There is a very swift wide big result obtainable in this.

It has a technology which is a very simple technology.

It enters in at the lower levels because it has to. This doesn’t mean it is unimportant, it means it has to be at the entrance gates of Scientology.

It IS a sweepingly fantastic discovery in the field of education and don’t neglect it.

You can trace back the subject a person is dumb in or any allied subject that got mixed up with it. The psychologist doesn’t understand Scientology. He never understood a word in psychology so he doesn’t understand Scientology.

Well that opens the gate to Education. Although I’ve given this one of the misunderstood definition last it is the most important one.

                                       	L. RON HUBBARD
                                       	Founder

LRH:nt.rdjh 
Copyright ©1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 31 MAY 1968
Issue II
(Reissued from Flag Order 808)

Remimeo

AUDITORS

	Auditors have since the first session of Scientology been the only individual on this planet, in this Universe capable of freeing man. 

	An Auditor is one who has been trained in the technology of Scientology. An Auditor applies standard technology to pre-clears. 

	At times some will forget or chose to ignore the fact that the Auditor is not just another fellow or a guy who works in Scientology. An Auditor is a highly trained specialist, no matter what level of Auditor. He or she is the only one who can give man the truth, that man knows. 

	An Auditor is to be respected. An Auditor is very important in Clearing this Planet, and this Universe. It’s a big job and the Auditor will do it. All Auditors are appreciated. 

	Special designations and insignia are to be developed to distinguish the Auditor from others and signalize his class. 

	L. RON HUBBARD
                                                                             	Founder

LRH:rs
Copyright © 1968
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  P O L I C Y  L E T T E R

17 MAY 1971 RA
ISSUE II RA
REVISED 13 NOVEMBER 1972
REVISED & REISSUED 10 JUNE 1974 AS BPL

Remimeo                                                   CANCELS
All Staff                          HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 MAY 1971R
All Students                                                 ISSUE II
SAME TITLE

STUDY POINTS AND CONDITIONS
(Revises and replaces HCO PL 25 Oct 70
of same title for all checksheets)

GOES INTO EFFECT WEEK ENDING 27 JUNE 1974.

	This revised issue has been designed to even out earlier inequities which gave artificial surges and slumps in students’ graphs, and adds points for handling misunderstoods to further reward application of Study Tech. 

	The following point system is the standard point system and is to be used on all Scientology and Dianetics Courses. It cancels all previous point systems. 

	A point system is used so that students may accurately measure their progress through a course. It further provides a quantitative measurement of the production of a course, Academy or Org. 

	The system itself is based on (1) how long a particular study action takes and (2) the type of action it is. Thus the practical is more heavily weighted than the theory, since the purpose of study is application. 

ALL POINTS MUST BE EARNED. 

	The point system assumes that the student knows and can apply all the data for which he has gotten points. (See HCO PL 26 May 1961 “Quality Counts”.) 

	PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON TOUGH EXCELLENT TRS AND METERING AND UNDERSTANDING OF AUDITORS CODE IS REQUIRED. 

	SUPERLITERATES (those who have completed PRD) count their points exactly the same as others. Eg. .an item marked starrate on a checksheet is so counted by the SUPERLITERATE even though not checked out by another. 

	STUDY ACTION                          	POINTS

0. 	Misunderstood word from            	1 point per word.
     	materials defined and cleared.
                   or
	
     	Word defined and cleared          	3 points per word.
     	on the PRD

1. 	Any written material (except O-rate 	3 points per page
	as noted otherwise below). 		*-rate 5 points per page

2. 	Tapes                             		O-rate 60 (60 min tape)
                                     			O-rate 90 (90 min tape)
                                     			*-rate 75 (60 min tape)
                                     			*-rate 100 (90 min tape)

3. 	Clay demonstrations (only         	25
     	credited if done precisely  
	per HCO B 11 Oct 67 “Clay
     	Table Training”. Demos must
     	be of good large size and show
     	what’s being demonstrated.
     	Points are counted per demo
     	rather than per item on check-
     	sheet where any one item re-
     	quired more than one demo.)

4. 	Essays                            		10

5. 	Study LRH C/Sed Sessions          	10 per session

6. 	TRs (Wherever TRs are done,the
     	following is required):

     	OT TR-O to major stable win   	50 per hour plus
                                     			50 for passing

     	TR-O to a major stable win
     	nonbullbaited pass.             		50 per hour plus
						100 for passing

	TR-O Bullbaited to a major    	50 per hour plus
	stable win                    		50 for passing

	Other TRs to 10 unflunked     	60 each
	consecutive actions. Each
	previous TR to be in.
                        
	TR  101                        		25

	TR 102 (All done thoroughly. 	50

	TR 103 All TRs to be in.) 		75

	TR 104                         		100

7. 	E-Meter Drills (except for 		15 per drill
	the following)

	E-Meter Drills 17, 20, 21, 26 	25 per drill

	Instant Read and Assessment 	50 per drill
	Drills

	Dating drills                  		120 per drill

8. 	Doll Drills - All thoroughly 		30
	done to a good pass - thor-
	oughly done with TRs in.

	Bullbaited Drills coached to 		75
	a flubless pass.

9. 	Films                    			O-rate same as for tapes
                            				*-rate same as for tapes

10. 	Codes and Axioms- To    	       	O-rate 1 per code or Axiom
     	be thoroughly under-   	       	*-rate 10 per code or Axiom
     	stood. If clay demos
     	done, the clay demo
     	points apply.

11. 	Scales - To be          			O-rate 15 per scale
	thoroughly understood. 		*-rate 25 per scale
	If clay demos done,
	the clay demo points
	apply.

12. 	Charts                  			*-rate 75
                            				O-rate 25
	1 column of a chart or 		*-rate 15
	1 level                			O-rate 10

13. 	Student Auditing
	requirements

    	Flunked Session                		0

    	Not Flunked Session            		60 per auditing hr

    	Well Done Session              		100 per auditing hr

    	Very Well Done Session         	120 per auditing hr

14. 	Student Folder Error           		10 per session
     	Summaries

     	Student PC Program -          		100
     	correct and accepted.

    	Dianetic Flow table            		100

15. 	Student C/S - correct and      		15 per C/S
     	accepted.                     		(includes session
                                   			admin time)

16. 	Coaching another student       	same points as student
     	through a drill               		for that drill

     	Completing a student fully    		500 point bonus -
     	on Dianetics or on Ex-        		provided student
     	panded Grade                  		delivered at a
						minimum rate of 25
						WDAHs in the chair per
						week in delivering the
						grade.

     	Coaching another student        	0
     	but failure to complete
     	to a pass

17. 	Twin Checkouts - not             	5 per checkout given
     	coaching                        		whether flunked or
                                     			passed

      	M3 on another student          		3 points for each
                                     			word found and cleared

18. 	Official Examinations            		200 for exam passed
                                             			or
                                     			100 for attest

19. 	Specialist Training -            		60 points per hour
     	practical, not other-
     	wise covered.

ADDITIONAL:

A. 	Hat checkouts, etc.           		follow study points system
                                 				for individual items

B.	Full Org Board drawn			120
	up and posted - for 
	any purpose.

STUDENT CONDITIONS

FULL  TIME STUDY = 8 hours a day, 7 days a week.

PART TIME STUDY = 2 1/2 hours a day, 7 days a week.

CONDITION                		POINTS            	POINTS                         						PART TIME		FULL TIME          

POWER                    			1800 or above       	5600 or above

AFFLUENCE                		1600 - 1799         	5000 - 5599

NORMAL                   		1400 - 1599         	4500 - 4999

EMERGENCY                		1200 - 1399         	4000 - 4499

DANGER                   		1000 - 1199         	3400 - 3999

NON - EXISTENCE          		Less than 1000      	Less than 3400

NOTE:  	The trend of the student’s stat graph is always
		taken into account per HCO PL 3 October 1970
		“ Stat Interpretation “.

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide
Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1972, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 MAY 1965

Remimeo       	Qual & Tech Divs
Sthil Cl VII Course	ALL HATS
Students
Sthil Staff                   	HCO Div
Ethics Hats                   	ALL HATS

PROCESSING

	Since 1950 we have had an iron bound rule that we didn’t leave pcs in trouble just to end a session. 

	For fifteen years we have always continued a session that found the pc in trouble and I myself have audited a pc for nine additional hours, all night long in fact, just to get the pc through. 

	Newer auditors, not trained in the stern school of running engrams, must learn this all over again. 

	It doesn’t matter whether the auditor has had a policy on this or not—one would think that common decency would be enough as to leave a pc in the middle of a secondary or an engram and just coolly end the session is pretty cruel. Some do it because they are startled or afraid and “Rabbit” (run away by ending the session). 

	Auditors who end a process or change it when it has turned on a heavy somatic are likewise ignorant. 

	WHAT TURNS IT ON WILL TURN IT OFF. 

	This is the oldest rule in auditing. 

	Of course people get into secondaries and engrams, go through misemotion and session because things are running out. To end off a process or a session because of the clock is to ignore the real purpose of auditing. The oldest rules we have are

	(a) GET THE PC THROUGH IT. 

	(b) WHAT TURNS IT ON WILL TURN IT OFF. 

	(c) THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY THROUGH. 

	These now are expressed as POLICY. 

	A falsified auditor’s report is also subject to a Court of Ethics. 

	Any auditor violating this policy letter is liable to an immediate Court of Ethics convened within 24 hours of the offence or as soon as is urgently possible. 

	Auditing at all levels works well when it is done by the book. 

	The purpose of Ethics is to open the way for and get in Tech.

	Then we can do our job. 

	THERE IS NO MODERN PROCESS THAT WILL NOT WORK WHEN EXACTLY APPLIED. 

	Therefore in the eyes of Ethics all auditing failures are Ethics failures—PTS, Suppressive Persons as pcs, or non-compliance with tech for auditors. 

	And the first offence an auditor can commit is ceasing to audit when he is most needed by his pc. 

	Hence it is the first most important consideration of Ethics to prevent such occurrences. 

	Then we’ll make happy pcs, Releases and Clears. 

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

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 DECEMBER 1965

Remimeo 
Academy Students 
other than St Hill 

Tech Division—Qual Division

STUDENTS GUIDE TO ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR

GENERAL

1. 	Adhere completely to the Code of a Scientologist for the duration of the course and behave in a manner becoming to a Scientologist at all times. 

2. 	Get sufficient food and sleep. Always eat breakfast before class and morning sessions. 

3. 	When being a preclear, be one, not a student or auditor. When being an auditor, be an Auditor, not a student or preclear. When in class and lectures, be a student not an auditor or a preclear. 

4. 	Get off all your known withholds. Know definitely that you have absolutely no hope for case advancement unless you get these known withholds off to you auditor. Any violation of rules must be reported by the auditor on the auditing report for the preclear so that they are no longer withholds from L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard or Supervisors. 

5. 	If you don’t know something or are confused about course data, ask a Supervisor or send a despatch. Do not ask other students as this creates progressively worsening errors in data. Also dispatches from you to L. Ron Hubbard will be relayed if you place all such in the basket marked “Students Out”. 

6. 	Students may only use the coin box telephone during non class periods. 

7. 	You must get the permission of the Office of L. Ron Hubbard to leave course before you are allowed to leave. You won’t be released if there is any doubt that you are inadequate technically or your case is considered in poor condition. Give an advanced warning as to when you are leaving. 

AUDITING

8. 	Do not consume any alcoholic beverage between 6 a.m. on Sundays and after class on Fridays. 

9. 	Do not consume or have administered to yourself or any other student any drug, antibiotics, aspirin, barbiturates, opiates, sedatives, hypnotics or medical stimulants for the duration of the course without the approval of the D of T. 

10. 	Do not give any processing to anyone under any circumstances without direct permission of the D of T. (Emergency assists excepted.) 

11. 	Do not receive any processing from anyone under any circumstances without the express permission of the D of T. 

12. 	Do not engage in any “self-processing” under any circumstances during the course at any time. 

13. 	Do not receive any treatment, guidance, or help from anyone in the healing arts, i.e. physician, dentist, etc, without the consent of the D of T/Ethics Officer. (Emergency treatment when the D of T is not available is excepted.) 

14. 	Do not engage in any rite, ceremony, practice, exercise, meditation, diet, food therapy or any similar occult, mystical, religious, naturopathic, homoeopathic, chiropractic treatment or any other healing or mental therapy while on course without the express permission of the D of T/ Ethics Officer. 

15. 	Do not discuss your case, your Auditor, your Supervisors, your classmates, L. Ron Hubbard, HCO WW personnel or HCO WW with anyone. Save your unkind or critical thoughts for your processing sessions or take up complaints with any supervisor. 

16. 	Do not engage in any sexual relationships of any nature or kind or get emotionally involved with any classmate who is not your legal spouse. 

17. 	Follow the Auditor’s Code during all sessions when being the Auditor. 

18. 	Follow technical procedure as outlined on the course exactly and precisely. 

19. 	Be honest at all times on your auditing report forms. Stating every process run, Tone Arm changes and times, sensitivity 	setting, cognitions of your preclear and any changes of physical appearance, reactions, communication level, or otherwise what you observe in your preclear. 

20. 	Place all reports in the folder of your preclear after each session, turn into the Examiner for classification. 

21. 	Students must not read their own report folder or that of another student, unless he is auditing that student. 

PREMISES 

22. 	Do not make any undue noise either indoors, or when leaving class. 

23. 	Use the correct entrances for entering and leaving the premises. 

QUARTERS 

24. 	Do not put cigarettes out in plastic waste baskets or on the floors. 

25. 	Keep all your bulletins, supplies and personal possessions in the space allotted to you and keep your space neat and orderly. 

26. 	Students are allowed to smoke during breaks only and always outside any study or auditing quarters. 

27. 	The basket marked “Student In” is the basket where all communications, bulletins or mail to students are placed. Always check this basket daily to see if you have received any communications. 

28. 	Report and turn in any damaged property or goods used on 	the Course. Protect and keep the premises in good condition. 

29. 	No food may be stored or eaten in the Classrooms at any time. 

SCHEDULES 

30. 	Be on time for class and all assignments. 

31. 	Buy any books you need from the invoice clerk at appointed times. 

32. 	Follow all schedules exactly. 

33. 	Study and work during your class periods and over weekends. You have a lot to get checked out on in order to get a course completion. You can’t afford to waste time. 

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

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

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 FEBRUARY 1965
(Reissued on 7 June 1967, with the word
Remimeo                              “instructor” replaced by “supervisor”.)
All Hats
BPI
SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Scientology, exactly and correctly followed, takes the person up and out of the mess. 
	So when you see somebody having a ball getting everyone to take peyote because it restimulates prenatals, know he is pulling people off the route. Realize he is squirreling. He isn’t following the route. 

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

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

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

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

	Squirreling is today destructive of a workable system. 

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

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1966
Remimeo

THE ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY
THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST

There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes which cause about 20% of a race to oppose violently any betterment activity or group.

Such people are known to have anti-social tendencies.

When the legal or political structure of a country becomes such as to favor such personalities in positions of trust, then all the civilizing organizations of the country become suppressed and a barbarism of criminality and economic duress ensues.

Crime and criminal acts are perpetuated by anti-social personalities. Inmates of institutions commonly trace their state back to contact with such personalities.

Thus, in the fields of government, police activities and mental health, to name a few, we see that it is important to be able to detect and isolate this personality type so as to protect society and individuals from the destructive consequences attendant upon letting such have free rein to injure others.

As they only comprise 20% of the population and as only 2l/2% of this 20% are truly dangerous, we see that with a very small amount of effort we could considerably better the state of society.

Well-known, even stellar, examples of such a personality are, of course, Napoleon and Hitler. Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Christie and other famous criminals were wellknown examples of the anti-social personality. But with such a cast of characters in history we neglect the less stellar examples and do not perceive that such personalities exist in current life, very common, often undetected.

When we trace the cause of a failing business, we will inevitably discover somewhere in its ranks the anti-social personality hard at work.

In families which are breaking up we commonly find one or the other of the persons involved to have such a personality.

Where life has become rough and is failing, a careful review of the area by a trained observer will detect one or more such personalities at work.

As there are 80% of us trying to get along and only 20% trying to prevent us, our lives would be much easier to live were we well-informed as to the exact manifestations of such a personality. Thus we could detect it and save ourselves much failure and heartbreak.

It is important then to examine and list the attributes of the anti-social personality. Influencing as it does the daily lives of so many, it well behooves decent people to become better informed on this subject.

ATTRIBUTES

The anti-social personality has the following attributes:
1. 	He or she speaks only in very broad generalities. “They say ...” “Everybody thinks...” “Everyone knows...” and such expressions are in continual use, particularly when imparting rumor. When asked, “Who is everybody . . .” it normally turns out to be one source and from this source the anti-social person has manufactured what he or she pretends is the whole opinion of the whole society.

This is natural to them since to them all society is a large hostile generality, against the anti-social in particular.

2. 	Such a person deals mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, invalidation and general suppression.

“Gossip” or “harbinger of evil tidings” or “rumormonger” once described such persons.

It is notable that there is no good news or complimentary remark passed on by such a person.

3. 	The anti-social personality alters, to worsen, communication when he or she relays a message or news. Good news is stopped and only bad news, often embellished, is passed along.

Such a person also pretends to pass on “bad news” which is in actual fact invented.

4. 	A characteristic, and one of the sad things about an anti-social personality, is that it does not respond to treatment or reform or psychotherapy.

5. 	Surrounding such a personality we find cowed or ill associates or friends who, when not driven actually insane, are yet behaving in a crippled manner in life, failing, not succeeding.

Such people make trouble for others.

When treated or educated, the near associate of the anti-social personality has no stability of gain but promptly relapses or loses his advantages of knowledge, being under the suppressive influence of the other.

Physically treated, such associates commonly do not recover in the expected time but worsen and have poor convalescences.

It is quite useless to treat or help or train such persons so long as they remain under the influence of the anti-social connection.

The largest number of insane are insane because of such anti-social connections and do not recover easily for the same reason.

Unjustly we seldom see the anti-social personality actually in an institution. Only his “friends” and family are there.

6. 	The anti-social personality habitually selects the wrong target.

If a tyre is flat from driving over nails, he or she curses a companion or a non-causative source of the trouble. If the radio next door is too loud, he or she kicks the cat.

If A is the obvious cause, the anti-social personality inevitably blames B, or C or D.

7. 	The anti-social cannot finish a cycle of action.

Such become surrounded with incomplete projects.
8. 	Many anti-social persons will freely confess to the most alarming crimes when forced to do so, but will have no faintest sense of responsibility for them.

Their actions have little or nothing to do with their own volition. Things “just happened”.

They have no sense of correct causation and particularly cannot feel any sense of remorse or shame therefore.

9. 	The anti-social personality supports only destructive groups and rages against and attacks any constructive or betterment group.

10. 	This type of personality approves only of destructive actions and fights against constructive or helpful actions or activities.

The artist in particular is often found as a magnet for persons with anti-social personalities who see in his art something which must be destroyed and covertly, “as a friend”, proceed to try.

11. 	Helping others is an activity which drives the anti-social personality nearly berserk. Activities, however, which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.

12. 	The anti-social personality has a bad sense of property and conceives that the idea that anyone owns anything is a pretense made up to fool people. Nothing is ever really owned.

THE BASIC REASON

The basic reason the anti-social personality behaves as he or she does lies in a hidden terror of others.

To such a person every other being is an enemy, an enemy to be covertly or overtly destroyed.

The fixation is that survival itself depends on “keeping others down” or “keeping people ignorant”.

If anyone were to promise to make others stronger or brighter, the anti-social personality suffers the utmost agony of personal danger.

They reason that if they are in this much trouble with people around them weak or stupid, they would perish should anyone become strong or bright.

Such a person has no trust to a point of terror. This is usually masked and unrevealed.

When such a personality goes insane the world is full of Martians or the FBI and each person met is really a Martian or FBI agent.

But the bulk of such people exhibit no outward signs of insanity. They appear quite rational. They can be very convincing.

However, the list given above consists of things which such a personality cannot detect in himself or herself. This is so true that if you thought you found yourself in one of the above, you most certainly are not anti-social. Self-criticism is a luxury the anti-social cannot afford. They must be RIGHT because they are in continual danger in their own estimation. If you proved one WRONG, you might even send him or her into a severe illness.

Only the sane, well-balanced person tries to correct his conduct.

RELIEF

If you were to weed out of your past by proper search and discovery those anti-social persons you have known and if you then disconnected, you might experience great relief.

Similarly, if society were to recognize this personality type as a sick being as they now isolate people with smallpox, both social and economic recoveries could occur.

Things are not likely to get much better so long as 20% of the population is permitted to dominate and injure the lives and enterprise of the remaining 80%.

As majority rule is the political manner of the day, so should majority sanity express itself in our daily lives without the interference and destruction of the socially unwell.

The pity of it is, they will not permit themselves to be helped and would not respond to treatment if help were attempted.

An understanding and ability to recognize such personalities could bring a major change in society and our lives.

THE SOCIAL PERSONALITY

Man in his anxieties is prone to witch hunts.

All one has to do is designate “people wearing black caps” as the villains and one can start a slaughter of people in black caps.

This characteristic makes it very easy for the anti-social personality to bring about a chaotic or dangerous environment.

Man is not naturally brave or calm in his human state. And he is not necessarily villainous.

Even the anti-social personality, in his warped way, is quite certain that he is acting for the best and commonly sees himself as the only good person around, doing all for the good of everyone—the only flaw in his reasoning being that if one kills everyone else, none are left to be protected from the imagined evils. His conduct in his environment and toward his fellows is the only method of detecting either the antisocial or the social personalities. Their motives for self are similar—self-preservation and survival. They simply go about achieving these in different ways.

Thus, as Man is naturally neither calm nor brave, anyone to some degree tends to be alert to dangerous persons and hence, witch hunts can begin.

It is therefore even more important to identify the social personality than the anti-social personality. One then avoids shooting the innocent out of mere prejudice or dislike or because of some momentary misconduct.

The social personality can be defined most easily by comparison with his opposite, the anti-social personality.

This differentiation is easily done and no test should ever be constructed which isolates only the anti-social. On the same test must appear the upper as well as lower ranges of Man’s actions.

A test that declares only anti-social personalities without also being able to identify the social personality would be itself a suppressive test. It would be like answering “Yes” or “No” to the question “Do you still beat your wife?” Anyone who took it could be found guilty. While this mechanism might have suited the times of the Inquisition, it would not suit modern needs.

As the society runs, prospers and lives solely through the efforts of social personalities, one must know them as they, not the anti-social, are the worthwhile people. These are the people who must have rights and freedom. Attention is given to the antisocial solely to protect and assist the social personalities in the society.

All majority rules, civilizing intentions and even the human race will fail unless one can identify and thwart the anti-social personalities and help and forward the social personalities in the society. For the very word “society” implies social conduct and without it there is no society at all, only a barbarism with all men, good or bad, at risk.

The frailty of showing how the harmful people can be known is that these then apply the characteristics to decent people to get them hunted down and eradicated.

The swan song of every great civilization is the tune played by arrows, axes or bullets used by the anti-social to slay the last decent men.

Government is only dangerous when it can be employed by and for anti-social personalities. The end result is the eradication of all social personalities and the resultant collapse of Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Russia or the West.

You will note in the characteristics of the anti-social personality that intelligence is not a clue to the anti-social. They are bright or stupid or average. Thus those who are extremely intelligent can rise to considerable, even head-of-state heights.

Importance and ability or wish to rise above others are likewise not indexes to the anti-social. When they do become important or rise they are, however, rather visible by the broad consequences of their acts. But they are as likely to be unimportant people or hold very lowly stations and wish for nothing better.

Thus it is the twelve given characteristics alone which identify the anti-social personality. And these same twelve reversed are the sole criteria of the social personality if one wishes to be truthful about them.

The identification or labelling of an anti-social personality cannot be done honestly and accurately unless one also, in the same examination of the person, reviews the positive side of his life.

All persons under stress can react with momentary flashes of anti-social conduct. This does not make them anti-social personalities.

The true anti-social person has a majority of anti-social characteristics.

The social personality has a majority of social characteristics.

Thus one must examine the good with the bad before one can truly label the anti-social or the social.

In reviewing such matters, very broad testimony and evidence are best. One or two isolated instances determine nothing. One should search all twelve social and all twelve anti-social characteristics and decide on the basis of actual evidence, not opinion.

The twelve primary characteristics of the social personality are as follows:
1. 	The social personality is specific in relating circumstances. “Joe Jones said...” “The Star Newspaper reported...” and gives sources of data where important or possible.

He may use the generality of “they” or “people” but seldom in connection with attributing statements or opinions of an alarming nature.

2. 	The social personality is eager to relay good news and reluctant to relay bad.

He may not even bother to pass along criticism when it doesn’t matter.

He is more interested in making another feel liked or wanted than disliked by others and tends to err toward reassurance rather than toward criticism.

3. 	A social personality passes communication without much alteration and if deleting anything tends to delete injurious matters.

He does not like to hurt people’s feelings. He sometimes errs in holding back bad news or orders which seem critical or harsh.
	
4. 	Treatment, reform and psychotherapy particularly of a mild nature work very well on the social personality.

Whereas anti-social people sometimes promise to reform, they do not. Only the social personality can change or improve easily.

It is often enough to point out unwanted conduct to a social personality to completely alter it for the better.

Criminal codes and violent punishment are not needed to regulate social personalities.

5. 	The friends and associates of a social personality tend to be well, happy and of good morale.

A truly social personality quite often produces betterment in health or fortune by his mere presence on the scene.

At the very least he does not reduce the existing levels of health or morale in his associates.

When ill, the social personality heals or recovers in an expected manner, and is found open to successful treatment.

6. 	The social personality tends to select correct targets for correction. He fixes the tyre that is flat rather than attack the windscreen. In the mechanical arts he can therefore repair things and make them work.

7. 	Cycles of action begun are ordinarily completed by the social personality, if possible.

8. 	The social personality is ashamed of his misdeeds and reluctant to confess them. He takes responsibility for his errors.

9. 	The social personality supports constructive groups and tends to protest or resist destructive groups.

10. 	Destructive actions are protested by the social personality. He assists constructive or helpful actions.

11. 	The social personality helps others and actively resists acts which harm others.

12. 	Property is property of someone to the social personality and its theft or misuse is prevented or frowned upon.

THE BASIC MOTIVATION

The social personality naturally operates on the basis of the greatest good.

He is not haunted by imagined enemies but he does recognize real enemies when they exist.

The social personality wants to survive and wants others to survive, whereas the anti-social personality really and covertly wants others to succumb.

Basically the social personality wants others to be happy and do well, whereas the anti-social personality is very clever in making others do very badly indeed.

A basic clue to the social personality is not really his successes but his motivations. The social personality when successful is often a target for the anti-social and by this reason he may fail. But his intentions included others in his success, whereas the anti-social only appreciate the doom of others.

Unless we can detect the social personality and hold him safe from undue restraint and detect also the anti-social and restrain him, our society will go on suffering from insanity, criminality and war, and Man and civilization will not endure.

Of all our technical skills, such differentiation ranks the highest since, failing, no other skill can continue, as the base on which it operates—civilization—will not be here to continue it.

Do not smash the social personality—and do not fail to render powerless the anti-social in their efforts to harm the rest of us.

Just because a man rises above his fellows or takes an important part does not make him an anti-social personality. Just because a man can control or dominate others does not make him an anti-social personality.

It is his motives in doing so and the consequences of his acts which distinguish the anti-social from the social.

Unless we realize and apply the true characteristics of the two types of personality, we will continue to live in a quandary of who our enemies are and, in doing so, victimize our friends.

All men have committed acts of violence or omission for which they could be censured. In all Mankind there is not one single perfect human being.

But there are those who try to do right and those who specialize in wrong and upon these facts and characteristics you can know them.

LRH:lb-r.rd.jh 						L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1966 						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 NOVEMBER 1967
(Revised and Reissued 18 July 1970)
Student Hat
Remimeo
ALL STUDENTS
ALL COURSES

OUT TECH

	If at any time a supervisor or other person in an org gives you interpretations of HCOBs, Policy Letters or tells you “That’s old. Read it but disregard it, “that’s just background data”, or gives you a chit for following HCOBs or tapes or alters tech on you or personally cancels HCOBs or Policy Letters without being able to show you an HCOB or Policy Letter that cancels it, YOU MUST REPORT THE MATTER COMPLETE WITH NAMES AND ANY WITNESSES ON DIRECT LINES TO THE INTERNATIONAL ETHICS OFFICER AT WORLDWIDE. IF THIS IS NOT IMMEDIATELY HANDLED, REPORT IN THE SAME WAY TO YOUR NEAREST SEA ORG MAA. 

	The only ways you can fail to get results on a pc are: 

	1. 	Not study your HCOBs and my books and tapes. 

	2. 	Not apply what you studied. 

	3. 	Follow “advice” contrary to what you find on HCOBs and Tapes. 

	4. 	Fail to obtain the HCOBs, books and tapes needed. 

	There is no hidden data line. 

	All of Dianetics and Scientology works. Some of it works faster. 

	The only real error auditors made over the years was to fail to stop a process the moment they saw a floating needle. 

	Recently the felony has been compounded by disclosure of the facts that data and tapes have been deleted from checksheets, data has been “relegated to background” and grades have not been in use fully to complete end phenomena as per the Process column on the Classification and Gradation Chart. This caused an almost complete unmock of the subject and its use. I am counting on you to see it is not allowed to happen EVER AGAIN. 

	Any supervisor or executive who interprets, alters or cancels tech is liable to the assignment of a Condition of Enemy. All the data is in HCOBs or Policy Letters or on tape. 

	Failures to make this mimeo known to every student carries a $10 fine for every student from which it is withheld. 
                             
	L. RON HUBBARD                         
	Founder
LRH:BW:rs
Copyright © 1967, 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
ECs
Tech Sec                           HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 JUNE 1970
DTS                                                             Issue II
D of T
All Courses
Supervisors and
Students

(CANCELS HCO PL 29 Oct 65 Student Auditing of Preclears,HCO PL 23 May 69 Issue Il Dianetic Course Student Auditing, HCO PL 17 May 65 Free Scientology Center and HCO PL 17 May 65 Issue II Academy Processing.)

STUDENT AUDITING

	The following policies regarding student auditing are made with reference to LRH ED 104 INT 2 Jun 70 “Only training gives low cost auditing from fellow students” and LRH ED 107 INT 3 Jun 70 “See that students do a lot of mutual auditing”. 

	Students may not audit any public preclear. (Unfinished but promised pcs existing at this date of issue may be assigned to the student as a Charity pc by the Chaplain.) 

	Students may audit students who have been enroled and who have paid in full for a Scientology level 0 or above or Dianetic Course. They may also audit contracted staff members and may be required to audit organization preclears under the D of P who are not enroled on a course in order to complete their auditing requirements. 

	The course supervisor is to ensure that each student preclear’s folder is C/Sed for each session to be given and that any needed folder error summaries are done. 

	The course supervisor must make the auditing requirements of students and preclears known on a scheduling board so that student auditors can be assigned to preclears and sessions scheduled. Regular sessions may be scheduled during course hours besides any other mutually agreed upon time. 

	The Classification requirement for each level is that the student successfully audits several preclears to the attainment of the grade of release of the same level by auditing each of the many processes of the grade to its end phenomenon. 

	The auditor must produce consistent well done or very well done sessions on at least three preclears in which all standard tech for that grade has been exactly applied. Every effort must be made to see that the student audits each process of the grade. 

	Scientology course students may audit Dianetic Course students on any needed Scientology actions. 

	Any student auditing successfully for the Director of Processing may be given an honors class for the level. 

	A student who has honors for every level may be awarded an honors final certificate and the certificate clearly marked and permanent. He also may be awarded an Internship for his highest class qualifying him as a C/S for that Class providing he also does the C/S checksheet well for that class Interne. 

	Students not permitted to audit for the D of P and who otherwise qualify as students are awarded PROVISIONAL certificates made permanent only after a year. 

	Students may NOT audit local residents for classification and the Free Scientology Centre is not now permitted. They may of course audit anyone after graduation and if for fee, must charge at least as much as the full org price. They may of course, if qualified, audit friends and family free of charge. 

	This does not prevent the Chaplain or D of P from assigning charity cases to students at the discretion of the org.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

LRH:bw:rd
Copyright © 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  P O L I C Y  L E T T E R

25 JUNE 1970 RA

Remimeo                                        REVISED 11 SEPT 1974
OES
Qual Sec                                 Cancels HCO PL 6 Apr ‘70 Issue II
C&A                                          Scientology Release Attestation
C/Ses                                        Form which referred to cancelled
                                                         (HCO PL 14 Mar ‘68.)

EXPANDED LOWER GRADES

CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED

Ref: C/S Series 93 New Grade Chart

	This chart is used by the examiner when a pc is sent for “Declare?” on a grade. 

	The examiner first checks the pc’s auditing folder to see that every process of a Grade being attested to has been run to true End Phenomena for each process. 

	He then puts the pc on the meter noting TA and needle behaviour. 

	The PC then makes a statement to the examiner which indicates that the pc actually made the end result of a Grade. 

	The examiner gets the pc to state what ability he has attained. 

	The pc may not state the exact wording on the Grade Chart but must attest to the ability gained as written as well.

LEVEL                             			ABILITY GAINED

GROUP PROCESSES                   		Awareness that change is 									available

LIFE REPAIR                       			Awareness of truth and the way
                                  				to personal freedom

ARC STRAIGHTWIRE                  		Knows he/she won’t get any 									worse

DIANETIC CASE COMPLETION		A well and happy human being

GRADE O COMMUNICATIONS  		Ability to communicate freely
RELEASE					with anyone on any subject

GRADE I, PROBLEMS RELEASE		Ability to recognize the source
                                  				of problems and make them 									vanish

GRADE II, RELIEF RELEASE         	Relief from the hostilities and
                                  				sufferings of life

GRADE III, FREEDOM RELEASE 		Freedom from the upsets of the
                                  				past and ability to face the future

GRADE IV, ABILITY RELEASE      	Moving out of fixed conditions 								and gaining abilities to do new 								things

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Remimeo
PR Hats	HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1971RA
D of P Hats	REVISED 4 APRIL 1974

TONE SCALE IN FULL

TONE SCALE EXPANDED	KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE

SERENITY OF BEINGNESS	40.0	KNOW
POSTULATES	30.0	NOT KNOW
GAMES	22.0	KNOW ABOUT
ACTION	20.0	LOOK
EXHILARATION	8.0	PLUS EMOTION
AESTHETIC	6.0
ENTHUSIASM	4.0
CHEERFULNESS	3.5
STRONG INTEREST	3.3
CONSERVATISM	3.0
MILD INTEREST	2.9
CONTENTED	2.8
DISINTERESTED	2.6
BOREDOM	2.5
MONOTONY	2.4
ANTAGONISM	2.0	MINUS EMOTION
HOSTILITY	1.9
PAIN	1.8
ANGER	1.5
HATE	1.4
RESENTMENT	1.3
NO SYMPATHY	1.2
UNEXPRESSED RESENTMENT	1.15
COVERT HOSTILITY	1.1
ANXIETY	1.02
FEAR	1.0
DESPAIR	.98
TERROR	.96
NUMB	.94
SYMPATHY	.9
PROPITIATION—(HIGHER TONED—SELECTIVELY GIVES)	.8
GRIEF	.5
MAKING AMENDS—(PROPITIATION—CAN’T W/H ANYTHING) 	.375
UNDESERVING	.3
SELF-ABASEMENT	.2
VICTIM	. 1
HOPELESS	.07
APATHY	.05
USELESS	.03
DYING	.01
BODY DEATH	0.0
FAILURE	0.0
PITY	-0.1
SHAME—(BEING OTHER BODIES)	-0.2
ACCOUNTABLE	-0.7
BLAME—(PUNISHING OTHER BODIES)	-1.0
REGRET—(RESPONSIBILITY AS BLAME)	-1.3
CONTROLLING BODIES	-1.5	EFFORT
PROTECTING BODIES	-2.2
OWNING BODIES	-3.0	THINK
APPROVAL FROM BODIES	-3.5
NEEDING BODIES	4.0	SYMBOLS
WORSHIPPING BODIES	-5.0	EAT
SACRIFICE	-6.0	SEX
HIDING	-8.0	MYSTERY
BEING OBJECTS	-10.0	WAIT
BEING NOTHING	-20.0	UNCONSCIOUS
CAN’T HIDE	30 0
TOTAL FAILURE	-40.0	UNKNOWABLE

LRH:ams.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971,1974	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	 

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

20 JULY 1974
Remimeo

(This issue cancels and replaces “Drills
Course for Auditors” - Basic Drills of
9 Oct 71 Issue I.)

Auditor Expertise Drills Series No. 1

BASIC AUDITING DRILLS

PURPOSE: To improve the quality of auditing by familiarizing Auditors with the exact procedure of each auditing action through the use of Drills. 

HOW TO USE: These Drills are numbered as Expertise Drill 1 (ED-l), Expertise Drill - 2 (ED-2) etc. The odd numbered Drills are unbullbaited. The even numbered Drills are bullbaited. If Coach upset occurs because of restimulation fruit words should be inserted in place of the process Key Words on bullbaited Drills. 

	Simply start with the first actions and work through the Drills in the order given. 

	If a student has trouble on a Drill locate whether the student has a misunderstood or has skipped gradient and handle either or both with standard study tech. This can lead back to outnesses on basics such as TRs, codes or scales. Whatever it is, find out why and handle. 

FORMAT FOR UNBULLBAITED DRILLS

NAME: Auditing on a doll unbullbaited. 

COMMAND: As for each separate process. 

PURPOSE: To train the student to be able to co-ordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action with the actual doingness of auditing. 

POSITION: Student seated at a table with E-Meter. worksheets and auditing forms as needed. In the chair opposite the student is a doll occupying the position of the PC. (During the Drill the Coach is seated or standing beside the Auditor. He does not take the position of the doll.) 

TRAINING STRESS: This Drill is coached. The student sets up the E-Meter and worksheets exactly as in a session - as follows: 

1. 	Set up E-Meter as for E-Meter drills. 

2. 	Set up shield (to prevent TA and admin being seen by PC - doll). 

3. 	Have extra pens under the E-Meter. 

4. 	Have C/S face down between the bottom of the E-Meter and the table. 

5. 	Have W/S and Lists readily available in sequence required for the session. 

	Auditor starts the session and runs a standard session with the particular auditing action being taken up on the doll, keeping full session admin and using all standard procedures of the auditing action. Coach watches Drill and points out any outnesses noted, giving a “That’s lt” and re start, Outnesses should be handled one at a time until none exist. 

	The Drill is done on a steeper and steeper gradient until the student can very quickly do the action correctly. 

	The Drill is passed when the student can do the Drill flawlessly with good TRs 0-4, correct procedure and commands, without comm lags or confusions ie. flublessly! 

F0RMAT TO BE USED FOR UNBULLBAITED DRILLS

NAME: Auditing _________________ unbullbaited. 

COMMANDS: As for each separate auditing action. 

PURPOSE: To train the student to be able to co-ordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action in a Drill similar to a real auditing session and thereby become flawless in applying lt.’ 

POSITION: Student seated at a table with E-Meter and Auditor forms, as needed. In the chair opposite the Auditor is a doll, as the PC. Coach sits beside doll and is the bullbaiter and gives answers as PC, not about his own case. 

TRAINING STRESS: The drill is the same as for auditing in that the “PC” Coach bullbaits the student Auditor using “fruit” answers during the session in an attempt to throw the student of a session. Where necessary, the Coach squeezes the cans to simulate reads. He still using “fruit” answers (six apples, blue pears) when asked to speak. 

	The PC bullbaiter can throw in situations, originate troubles or gains, be tricky, etc . But he must never lose sight of HCOB 24 May 1968, “Coaching”, especially the second paragraph, “Coach with reality”.

	Once the Coach throws out a situation, etc., he must allow the student Auditor to carry it out, and handle the situation before the Coach calls a new situation. 

	Stress is on training the Student Auditor to have his TRs 0-4 IN on the bullbaiter. 

	The Coach (bullbaiter) does the “Start”, flunking or “That’s it”. Flunks are given for any improper commands, procedure, comm lags, break in TRs or improper session

	Each Drill is to be done thoroughly building up the speed of Auditor commands and actions (“It’s the number of auditing commands per unit of auditing time which make gains in a session.” LRH) 

	The Drill is passed when the student can do the Drill flawlessly with excellent TRs 0-4, correct procedure and commands, without comm lags or confusion.

	These are the Drills that train the student Auditor to handle all the elements in a session, to be exact and be real.

ED-1 		HOW TO GET A PC       UNBULLBAITED

ED-1		HOW TO GET A PC       UNBULLBAITED

		REF:  HCOB 5 March 1971 C/S Series 25 The Fantastic 					New HGC Line. 

PURPOSE: To teach the student Auditor how to get a PC. The student Auditor must be able to get his own PC, on his own if necessary. 

POSITION: Student Auditor and Coach seated at a table. 

TRAINING STRESS: The Coach and student Auditor are seated opposite each other at a table. First the Coach has the student give him the steps in order until he thoroughly understands them and could use them. When the Coach calls off situations, for example, the D of P says he doesn’t have any PCs. Or, all PCs on lines need actions you cannot audit, etc. How will you get a PC? Keep throwing situations at the student Auditor until you are confident he could get a PC no matter what barriers existed. Flunks are given for any mishandling, or failing to satisfactorily obtain a PC. The student is passed when he knows how to get a PC. 

STEPS:

1. 	Inform the D of P that a PC is needed. 

2. 	Hound the D of P to assign you a PC, if he hasn’t. 

3. 	Independently go through current PC folders looking for any ready for an action you          	can do, get their Auditor to complete them to where you can audit them, fast. 

4. 	Hound the D of P if he won’t prepare you a PC. 

5. 	Study PC folders of PCs currently not on lines with your Org. Also study the person’s        	CF folder, find out from the study: 
	
	A. 	What hasn’t been handled.

	B. 	What goals he has had for processing. 

	C. 	What the person’s own statement is of what is wrong with him or what he wants        		handled or improved. 

D. 	What person came into Dianetics/Scientology for. (Above are usually liberaly stated through-out PC and CF file but almost always on first White form or letter Reg. questionnaire.) 

	Get in comm with the person through a letter and get him in to see the Registrar. 

	PC must sign up with the Registrar and pay the Cashier for processing. Reception            	provides the routing form. The D of P makes the PC available once the PC reaches that        	point on the routing form. 

6. 	If a student, and Org PC folders are unavailable, get raw meat PCs by using the Dissem                 	Drill for FSMs. Strictly laid down in HCO PL 23 Oct 65. Contact, handle, salvage, and          	bring to understanding. 

____________

ED-3		OBSERVING THE OBVIOUS     	UNBULLBAITED 

ED-4 		(No Bullbaiting on this Drill.) 

REF: 		BTB 26 Oct 70 Obnosis and the Tone Scale. 
PURPOSE: To train an Auditor to see what is there without additives or opinions.

POSITION:	Coach and student seated at table or ambulatory as required.

TRAINING STRESS: To train an Auditor “The art of observing the obvious. Its the only way you ever see anything. You look at the is-ness of something, at what is actually there.” LRH 

COMMANDS: “Start”, ‘‘Flunk”, “What do you see?”. 

STEPS: 

1. 	Coach and student may be seated or standing in the class room to start with and may            	move around to other areas. 

2. 	Coach says “Start”, “What do you see?”. 

3. 	The student Auditor tells the Coach what he observes that is plainly visible. 

4. 	The Coach accepts nothing that isn’t plainly visible to the student Auditor. 

	Eg. The student is looking at another person in the room: 	
	STUDENT: Well, I can really see he’s got ears.” 

	COACH: All right, but from where you are sitting, can you see both ears right now as          	you are looking at him? 
	
	STUDENT: Well, no. 

	COACH: Okay. What do you see? 

	STUDENT: I see he’s got a left ear. 

	COACH: Fine. 

5. 	After the student has caught on to what observing the obvious is you flunk him for any        tacit assumptions, conjectures, deductions of what might be there from what he does see        there. (Something the bank says ought to go in company with what is there.) 

	The Coach only accepts what is visible and plain to the eye. 

6. 	The Student Auditor passes this Drill when he can obnose flawlessly. 

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 for the Advanced Clinical Course to help train students to observe the obvious. Reissued in BTB 26 Oct 70 Issue III “Obnosing and the Tone Scale”. 

ED-5 		LEARNING THE TONE SCALE      UNBULLBAITED

ED-6 		(There is no bullbaiting on this Drill.) 

REFS: 	HCOB 25 Sept 71 Issue III, Rev. 15 Nov 71
		Tone Scale in full
		HCO PL 13 May 72 Chinese School
		HCOB 21 June 72 Issue IV WC Series 41, Method 8
		The book: Science of Survival

PURPOSE: To teach a student Auditor the full Tone Scale so he understands and knows it verbatim and can apply it. 
POSITION: Student seated at a table. 

TRAINING STRESS: Is on duplicating and understanding and learning the full Tone Scale “Chinese School” style. The first 3 parts are done with a twin coach. The last part can be done either singly- with a coach or in a group. 

COMMANDS: No set commands. 

STEPS:

PART 1 - METHOD 8: 

1.   	Take a copy of HCOB 25 Sept 71 Rev. 15 Nov 71, Tone Scale in Full. 

2. 	Starting with bottom of the scale and going up towards the top - clear each word of the      Tone Scale per Method 8 HCOB. 

PART 2 - EXAMPLES:

1. 	The student Auditor tells his twin coach examples of actions that would indicate a person’s tone level. (Note: The book Science of Survival is all about the Tone Scale and explains behavior on the different tone levels and should be read by all Auditors. 

2. 	When the student has done this to his and the coach’s satisfaction, go on to the next          	part. 

PART 3 - ACTING IT OUT: 

1. 	The student now takes the Tone Scale HCOB and starts from the bottom up - dramatizing each different tone level. His twin coach tries to guess which one he is doing. The student does this over again and again until he feels confident he can  duplicate the various tone levels. Then the coach takes a turn and dramatizes the different  tone levels and the student guesses which one he is portraying. This part of the Drill is  done to the satisfaction of both the student and coach. When this point is reached, go on to the next part. 

PART 4 - CHINESE SCHOOL:

1. 	Read HCO PL 13 May 72 “Chinese School”. 

2. 	Take some big card board or paper and print the Expanded Tone Scale on it with a felt          	tip pen of heavy ink. 

3. 	This Drill can be done by one student and coach or with a group. 

4. 	Coach has a pointer and starts from the bottom of the Tone Scale and works up towards        	the top in the following manner: 

 	The coach points and says “Total Failure.” Student(s) says after him: “Total Failure.” 
		
	Coach points and says “Can’t Hide.” Student(s): “Can’t Hide.” 

	And so on up to Serenity of Beingness. 

5. 	This is cycled through several times until the student or group as a whole feels good                  	about this step and is thoroughly familiar with the Tone levels. 

6. 	In this step the coach points to the Tone level and says: 
	“What is this?”

	Student(s): “Total Failure.” 

	Coachs       “What is this?” 

	Student(s): “Can’t Hide.” 

	and so forth. Coach follows the Tone Scale from bottom up to the top of the scale until           	the student(s) is thoroughly familiar with it and can do it very fast. 

7. 	When the student(s)get very good at the above steps, you can have them recite the Tone   	Levels without looking at the chart. 

	In this way you can also tell how much more drilling may be needed in the event the           	Tone Levels are not yet known verbatim. 

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard on 13 May 72 for use in study, learning languages and for ESTO use. See HCO PI 13 May 72. 

ED - 7 	OBNOSIS AND THE TONE SCALE   UNBULLBAITED

ED - 8		(There is no bullbaiting on this Drill. ) 

REFS: 	BTB 26 Oct 70 Obnosis and the Tone Scale
		BPL    7 Jan 72 Iss II PR Series 14 Creating

	Survey Questions (Star-rate “Breakthrough” p.5 and “Spotting Tone” p. 17-18.) 

PURPOSE: To train the student Auditor to gain proficiency in looking at the is-ness of people and spotting them on the Tone Scale. 

POSITION: Ambulatory. 

TRAINING STRESS: Is in the application of what the student Auditor has learned in the two preceding Drills by combining them and putting them into use. 

COMMANDS: The following questions were designed to get a person “involved” so you can get an Emotional Reaction,  (If you want to get real fancy, you can of course learn to do a proper Survey Question for the PL 7 Jan 72 Issue II, PR Series 14, “Creating Survey Questions”,) 

	1. “What’s the most obvious thing about me?” 

	2. “When was the last time you had your hair cut?” 

	3. “Do you think people do as much work now as they did fifty years ago?” 

STEPS: 

1. 	The student takes a clipboard and paper and pen and goes out of the classroom and into           the public to talk to strangers. 

2. 	The student can tell public persons he is a public-opinion poll-taker from the Hubbard           Research Foundation. 

3. 	The student is to keep in mind the real purpose of going out and talking to people at all        times. (This is to spot persons on the Tone Scale, their chronic Tone and social Tone.) 
4. 	To gain proficiency, this Drill is done on a gradient

A. 	Walk around and spot people on the Tone Scale. Just say to yourself what Tone          Level each person is at until you feel confident that you can tell instantly where any             person is on the Tone Scale, spotting their social Tone and actual Theta Tone. 
	
B. 	Now, decide to look for someone at a specific Tone Level. Walk around until             you find someone at that Tone. Then pick another and go from there. Do this until you feel confident, making sure you spot both their social Tone and actual Theta Tone Level. 

C. 	Now take your clipboard and write your survey questions on it (if not already              done) leaving a large space between questions. Mark the questions 1, 2, 3 or a, b, c.

	The second sheet of paper under your question sheet is marked 1, 2, 3 or a, b, c               - also leaving a large space between the numbers. On this sheet is where you will           quickly note the Tone Levels, social and Theta, by number. 

	Now go up to someone and give them an R-factor that you are a public-opinion poll taker and you would like to ask him some survey questions. 

	Ask your questions (as given above) and very quickly note the Tone Levels and any useful info you may want to jot down. 

	Don’t linger or fumble about with your papers - be efficient in your manner. 

	Do step C until you feel very confident in approaching people and spotting their Tones. 

D. 	Now interview at least 15 people. With the first five, match their chronic tone as  soon as you’ve spotted it and see what happens. Make brief notes after the interview. With the next five, you drop below their chronic tone and see what happens. Make brief  notes after the interview. With the last five, as soon as you spot their chronic Tone, go a 1/2 to one tone higher than their and see what happens. Make brief notes after the interview. 

	Do this drill until you feel very confident and have gained assurance in handling people and Tone Levels. 

HISTORY: 	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 to teach students how to obnose and use the Tone Scale. Tone Scale data is further expounded in LRH’s book: “Science of Survival” and in BPL 7 Jan 72 Issue II, PR Series 14, “Creating Survey Questions” where further Tone Scale Drills were developed. 

ED - 9		THE IDEAL SESSION START DRILL      UNBULLBAITED 

ED - 10 	(There is no bullbaiting on this Drill. ) 

REF: 		BTB 16 June 1971 Issue III, Revised 10 April1972 
		“The Ideal Session Start Drill” .

PURPOSE: To train the student to raise his awareness of the condition of the PC. 

POSITION: As described. 

TRAINING STRESS:  An Auditor must be able to see when a PC has not eaten or slept, or what his tone level is, or is the PC auditable? 

1. 	Student must know the Tone Scale levels verbatim, from HCOB 25 Sept 1971R 15 Nov 1971 “Tone Scale in Full”. Coach and student go around the Org. Coach has the student name the Tone Level of large numbers of persons until the student can spot a person’s Tone Scale level instantly, and with certainty. 

2. 	Then the coach has the student find someone who hasn’t had enough sleep for a session. He must observe the physical and emotional aspects of the person and note these down. Do this on as many persona who haven’t had enough sleep as possible. Coach then gets the student to tell him the characteristics of a person who hasn’t had enough sleep. The Drill is done until the student can spot someone who hasn’t had enough sleep instantly and with certainty. 

3. 	Then the coach has the student find someone who hasn’t eaten, with certainty. Do the same as in 2 above until the student knows the characteristics of a person who hasn’t eaten, with certainty.

4.	Then the coach has the student find persons who haven’t had enough sleep and who have not eaten enough for a session with certainty. Write down these characteristics in combination. Student does the Drill until he can spot a person who hasn’t slept enough or eaten enough for a session. 

5. NOTE:  Both coach and student are expected to be familiar with the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation (Science of Survival), and to have a copy of this chart. 

	A disagreement between coach and student is not to develop into a Q&A session. It is handled by simple reference to this chart. 

HISTORY:  Developed in 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard. 

ED - 11 	SESSION SET UP PROCEDURES 	UNBULLBAITED

ED - 12 	(No bullbaiting on this Drill. ) 

PURPOSE: To train the student in obnosis of preclears and in session set up procedures. 

POSITION: Student and coach seated at a table across from each other. 

COMMANDS:  No set commands. 

TRAINING STRESS: The steps below are drilled until the student can do the whole procedure flawlessly. All actions observations, notes made, steps 1-16 done in one minute. The coach gradually increases the stress, adds mannerisms which the student is to see and note down, and demonstrates in increasing degree of out points. The student is to see each single one and note it down. Flunks are given for incorrect procedure or out TRs. The Drill is passed when the student can do it flawlessly. 

STEPS:

1. 	An E-Meter is set up on the table, shielded so coach can’t see the TA. 

2. 	Worksheets, auditing reports etc., are also behind the shield so the coach can’t see what is written. 

3. 	Under the E-Meter are reserve pens, minimum 3 extra blue (black) ones, a green one and a red one. (Reason - they may be needed for list corrections.) 
4. 	E - Meter already switched on (having been trimmed and plugged in before coach arrives at table. 

5. 	Coach sits down. Student may already be seated or sits down with coach. 
6. 	A piece of paper with red writing on it (the current C/S lies face down between the table  edge and the bottom of the E-Meter. 

7. 	Student observes coach when he comes in and sits down. 

8. 	Student watches for indicators: 

	A. Skin tone. 
	B. Expression on face. 
	C. Tone level. 
	D. Mannerisms - twitching eyes, trembling, nail biting  etc. 

9. 	Student notes these down on W/S, very briefly. 

10. 	Student observes characteristics of lack of sleep if the slightest bit suspicious asks coachs “How many hours of sleep have you had?” (Note: He does not asks “Have you had enough sleep?” for obvious reasons.) Similarly obnoses for lack of food, drugs etc. In this manner he assures that the Auditor’s Code does not get broken. 

11. 	Tells the Coach, “Pick up the Cans please.” 

12 . 	Checks the coach’s grip on the cans . 

13. 	Student assures throughout the Drill that the cans are held in such a position that he can  always see them. 

14. 	E-Meter and worksheets are aligned so the student can see them and the coach (PC) at  one time. 

15. 	Student observes coach and sees whether or not the coach is ready to begin session. 

16. 	Student then says “This is the session.” (Tone 40.) 

ED - 13 	SPOTTING BAD INDICATORS  	UNBULLBAITED

ED - 14 	(No bullbaiting on this Drill.) 

REFS: 	HCOB 29 July 1964  Good Indicators at Lower Levels.
		BTB    26 April 1969 Bad Indicators

PURPOSE:  To train the student in obnosis of the PC as a continued action and to teach the student Auditor that auditing does not occur to the degree that the Auditor is not with the PC. 

POSITION:  Coach and student Auditor seated at a table across from one another with a full session set up. 

COMMANDS:  “Do birds fly?”; “Do fish swim?” 

TRAINING STRESS:  This Drill is done with perfect TR 0-IV. Coach uses “fruits” for verbalizations (eg. “There is a banana on the table.” etc.), and is not permitted to enter his own case into situations. Flunks are given for any failure to spot and note any bad indicator, or for any out TR. The Drill is passed when the student can flawlessly spot bad indicators. 

STEPS:

1. 	Verifies session set up procedures have been done. 
2. 	Notes coach is ready to be asked the first question. 

3. 	Both student and coach have a copy of HCOB 29 July 64 Good Indicators at lower levels, and a copy of BTB 26 April 69 Bad Indicators. 

4. 	The coach dramatizes one of the bad indicators. Student spots it and notes it down. 

5. 	Student tells coach each time what it was coach did. 

6. 	Coach dramatizes another, student spots it and notes it down, Coach gradiently makes  this step more difficult by becoming more subtle. 

7. 	All that is being done in this Drill is as described above. This Drill is passed when the student can flawlessly and immediately spot bad indicators.
 
ED - 15 	CLEARING COMMANDS 	UNBULLBAITED

ED - 16 	CLEARING COMMANDS 	BULLBAITED

REFS: 	HCOB 7 Nov 68  Clearing Commands All Levels
		HCO PL 4 April 72 Rev. 7 April 72 
				     Ethics and Study Tech
		BTB 2 May 72R  Clearing Commands

PURPOSE:  To train a Student Auditor to clear a processing
command in session until both the “PC” coach and the student Auditor are satisfied that a full grasp of the meaning of the command (by the “PC”) has been obtained. 

POSITION:  Student and coach seated at a table across from each other with a full session set up. 

COMMANDS:  No set commands. Student Auditor uses phrases from “Alice in Wonderland” with the “He saids” ommitted. 

TRAINING STRESS: To train an auditor to clear an auditing command fully with TRs O-IV in. 

STEPS:

1. 	Just before the coach gives a “Start” the Student Auditor takes a phrase from the book “Alice in Wonderland” with the “He saids” ommitted and writes it down. 

2. 	The coach then gives a “Start.” and the student Auditor gives an R-factor “We are going to run a process called .” Student makes up a name, using a fruit word(s) or a word(s) from “Alice”. 

3. 	The student also says “We’ll clear the command first.” 

3A. 	The Auditor makes sure the PC is holding the cans and watches the Meter for reads while clearing the words and the command. 

4. 	The student then clears each word of the command, starting with the last word in the  command. (In other words, clear the command words backwards.) 

5. 	For any word the PC- coach does not know the definition of, the student Auditor opens  the dictionary and finds each word to be cleared (one at a time of course). He has the “PC” read the definitions and use the word in sentences until the PC feels good about it and understands it. 

6. 	The coach meanwhile is holding the cans in his lap and can simulate Meter reads by can  squeezes. 

7. 	When all the single words are cleared, the student then clears the whole command and watches the Meter for a read. 

8. 	The student Auditor must be sure the “PC” coach fully understands the command. 

9. 	The Drill is coached on a gradient, handling one thing at a time. 

10. 	The coach throws in misunderstand word phenomena becoming more and more difficult   until the student Auditor can handle the randomity of clearing words and commands. 

	The coach then bullbaits him on a gradient to a flawless performance and a pass. 

ED-17 	INDICATION OF F/N DRILL     UNBULLBAITED

ED-18 	INDICATION OF F/N DRILL     BULLBAITED

REF:  		HCOB 20 Feb 70  Floating Needles and End
                                                      Phenomena

PURPOSE; To train student to correctly obnose and handle End Phenomena. 

POSITION:  Student and coach seated facing each other across a table with a full session set up. 

COMMANDS:  “Do birds fly?” or “Do fish swim?” 

TRAINING STRESS:  The student Auditor is trained to see a process cycle to complete EP effortlessly and flawlessly. 

STEPS:

1. 	Coach gives student a “Start” and student gives command “Do birds fly?” or “Do fish  swim?”. 

2. 	Coach answers as in TR 4. He ensures that the student’s TRs are IN. 
	
3. 	When the coach has observed that the student’s TRs are in, he proceeds to simulate an  End Phenomena using a pen to simulate a small FN which is gradually being widened as the “PC” cognites. 

4. 	Coach talks, looks at student, looks away, looks at student etc. 

5. 	The Student Auditor obnoses coach until he sees coach has said all, the needle is floating widely, coach has VGIs and is in PT, ie. no longer introverted. 

6. 	Student Auditor then indicates the FN by saying as though agreeing with the “PC” -  “Your needle is floating.” 

ED - 19	HANDWRITING DRILL     	UNBULLBAITED

ED - 20   	(No bullbaiting on this Drill.) 

REF:  		HC0B 3 Nov 71 C/S Series 66 Auditors Worksheets

PURPOSE: To train the Student Auditor in handwriting so that he can write legibly and quickly in session. 

POSITION: Student Auditor seated at a table. Coach seated opposite him. 
COMMANDS: “Do birds fly?” or “Do fish swim?” 

TRAINING STRESS: This Drill is to increase the speed and legibility of an Auditor’s handwriting. 

STEPS:

1. 	The coach gives a “Start” and the Student Auditor says “Do 	birds fly?” or “Do fish  swim?”. 

2. 	The coach answers the questions and talks about the rate of a slow “PC”. 

3. 	The student Auditor keeps adequate session admin. 

4. 	When the student Auditor can easily keep up with the coach and maintain good session  control, the coach increases his speed of talking until the student can keep adequate session admin even with a very fast PC. 

5. 	Flunks are given for out TRs, illegible handwriting, or not getting important data written  down. 

6. 	The Drill is passed when the student Auditor can write quickly and legibly even with a  very fast PC. 

	Revised & Reissued as BTB
	By Flag Mission 1234
	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
	2nd: Molly Harlow

	Authorized by AVU

	for the
BDCS:SW:AL:MH:al 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 OCTOBER 1968R
REVISED 1 JANUARY 1976
Remimeo
Auditor 43
Class VIII

THE AUDITOR’S CODE

In celebration of the 100% gains attainable by Standard Tech.

I hereby promise as an Auditor to follow the Auditor’s Code.

1. 	I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session.

2. 	I promise not to invalidate the preclear’s case or gains in or out of session.

3. 	I promise to administer only Standard Tech to a preclear in the standard way.

4. 	I promise to keep all auditing appointments once made.

5. 	I promise not to process a preclear who has not had sufficient rest and who is physically tired.

6. 	I promise not to process a preclear who is improperly fed or hungry.

7. 	I promise not to permit a frequent change of Auditors.

8. 	I promise not to sympathize with a preclear but to be effective.

9. 	I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism but to finish off those cycles I have begun.

10. 	I promise never to walk off from a preclear in session.

11. 	I promise never to get angry with a preclear in session.

12. 	I promise to run every major case action to a floating needle.

13. 	I promise never to run any one action beyond its floating needle.

14. 	I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session.

15. 	I promise not to mix the processes of Scientology with other practices except when the preclear is physically ill and only medical means will serve.

16. 	I promise to maintain Communication with the preclear and not to cut his comm or permit him to overrun in session.

17. 	I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case.

18. 	I promise to continue to give the preclear the process or auditing command when needed in the session.
19. 	I promise not to let a preclear run a wrongly understood command.

20. 	I promise not to explain, justify or make excuses in session for any Auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.

21. 	I promise to estimate the current case state of a preclear only by Standard Case Supervision data and not to diverge because of some imagined difference in the case.

22. 	I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.

23. 	I promise to see that any fee received for processing is refunded following the policies of the Claims Verification Board, if the preclear is dissatisfied and demands it within three months after the processing, the only condition being that he may not again be processed or trained.

24. 	I promise not to advocate Scientology only to cure illness or only to treat the insane, knowing well it was intended for spiritual gain.

25. 	I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.

26. 	I promise to refuse to permit any being to be physically injured, violently damaged, operated on or killed in the name of “mental treatment”.

27. 	I promise not to permit sexual liberties or violation of the mentally unsound.

28. 	I promise to refuse to admit to the ranks of practitioners any being who is insane.

Auditor:__________________________

Date: ____________________________

Witness:	Place: ___________________________

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1968, 1976 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

6 NOVEMBER 1972R
Issue VII
Revised & Reissued 25 July 1974 as BTB
Remimeo	

CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER 1972
Issue VII
SAME TITLE

(The only revision is under CONTENT OF WORKSHEET:
“G. Reads” was added.)

Auditor Admin Series 14R

THE WORKSHEETS

The Worksheets are the sheets on which the Auditor writes a complete running record of the session from beginning to end, page after page, as the session goes along.

A Worksheet is always foolscap, 8 x 13 inches, written on both sides and each page is numbered, back and front, top center of page.

This is so an Auditor can say, “Now the R/S occurred on page 25,” which saves a lot of time. Further it gives the proper number of pages the session went.

The Worksheet is written in two columns. The Auditor writes down the left-hand column and then down the right-hand column.

CONTENT OF WORKSHEET

The most important parts of the session to be noted are:

A. 	When the TA goes up (on what?)

B. 	When the TA goes down (on what?)

C. 	When an F/N occurs (on what—any cog?)

D. 	When VGIs occur (on what?)

E. 	When BIs occur (on what?)

F. 	How the process ran (what commands are being run?)

G. 	Reads

TA and time notations should be made at regular intervals throughout the session.

When a process reaches EP—write in the pc’s cognition, circle the F/N and whether or not it was indicated, note the pc’s indicators, the time and TA.

When Two-Way Comming a subject it is essential that all items (terminals, statements, etc) that read are so marked on the worksheets—LF, LFBD. All reading items are circled in green after the session.
R/S items, Ethics situations, Ser Facs and Evil Purps are marked, after the session, by ringing them on the W/S with a red pen.

SHORTHANDING

Auditors usually develop a system of shorthanding the session actions being done, so that session speed is not hampered by Admin.

For example, the repetitive process:

       	Recall a change
       	Recall a no-change
       	Recall a failed change

is run as a bracket (the pc is given the first command, then the second and then the third and then the first and then the second, etc).

The first command can be abbreviated to 1, the second to 2, and the third to 3.

The W/S therefore would look like:

	12.32	2.8
a   _

failed   _	(note that each word of the command is
	cleared before clearing the command as
change   _	a whole)

no-change   _

recall    _	(F/N)

1.

 	cleared

2.

 	cleared

3.

 	cleared

	12.49	2.6

1. 	Mother went on
	holiday

2. 	at school

3. 	didn’t sell bike

1. 	moved to new house

2. 	etc.

After the session when the commands are written out in full on the Auditor’s Report Form, the numbers are again noted so that the C/S can refer to them.

WHATEVER SYSTEM OF ABBREVIATION IS USED BY THE AUDITOR, THE WORKSHEET MUST COMMUNICATE TO THE C/S WHAT ACTIONS WERE TAKEN DURING THE SESSION.

LEGIBILITY

Worksheets should be written legibly. They are never recopied.

The Auditor should always read over his W/sheets before turning in the folder to the Case Supervisor and if any words or letters are missing or cannot be read, they should be put in in block print, in red.

Example:

This can be overdone, to the extent that it is almost sarcasm. At the most it should just run into one or two corrections to a page. If the Auditor is having to correct the page more than that he should learn how to write rapidly and legibly. See HCOB 3 Nov 71, C/S Series 66, “Auditor’s Worksheets”, which also appears as Auditor Admin Series 15 and comes next in this series.

NECESSITY OF WORKSHEETS

It is a CRIME to give any session without making an Auditor’s Report (i.e. actual W/S taken at that time) or to copy the original W/sheets after the session and submit a copy instead of the real reports.

Assist Reports that use only Contact or Touch Assist are written after the session and sent to HGC Admin to be filed in the pc folder. The pc is sent to the Examiner after an assist.

References: 	HCO P/L 19 Nov 65 “Auditing Reports”
          	HCO B 7 May 69 “Summary of How to Write an Auditor’s Report”
          	Tape 12 June 71 “Welcome to the Flag Intern Course”
          	HCO B 3 Nov 71 C/S Series 66, “Auditor’s Worksheets”
          	Tape 7 April 72 Exp Dn Tape 3, “Auditor Administration”

                                    	Training & Services Bur
	Revised & Reissued as BTB 
	by Flag Mission 1234
                                    	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
                                    	2nd: Molly Harlow
	Authorized by AVU 
	for the 
	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
	of the 
	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:HE:AL:MH:MM:mh.rd.jh 
Copyright © 1972, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

6 NOVEMBER 1972R
Issue VI
Revised & Reissued 27 August 1974 as BTB
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER 1972
Issue VI
SAME TITLE

Auditor Admin Series 13R

THE AUDITOR REPORT FORM

An Auditor’s Report Form is made out at the end of each session. It gives an outline of what actions were taken during the session.

Each Report Form should be filled in at the top with:

(a) 	Preclear’s name (full name) and Grade (very prominent).

(b) 	Auditor’s name (full name).

(c) 	Date.

(d) 	No. of intensive hours scheduled (121/2—25—50 etc).

(e) 	Time length of session excluding time for breaks (example 5 hrs 15 m). This is “hours in the chair”.

(f) 	Running total of scheduled hours completed to date.

(g) 	Total TA for session. Often neglected but important as an indicator of case progress.

The body of the form is filled in with the following information:

(h) 	Time started and ended session.

(i) Condition of pc.

(j) 	TA and Sensitivity setting at beginning and end of session.

(k) 	Rudiments.

(l) 	What process was run—LISTING THE EXACT COMMANDS (often forgotten by most Auditors).

(m) 	Time, TA and Sens at start and end of process.

(n) 	Whether process is flat or not.

(o) 	Any F/Ns.

(p) 	Any R/S Items or Ev Purps are noted in the right-hand column, in red.

(q) 	TA range.

At the bottom of the form the Trim Check result is noted.

                                    	Compiled by
                                    	Training & Services Bur

	Revised & Reissued as BTB 
	by Flag Mission 1234

                                    	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
                                    	2nd: Molly Harlow

	Authorized by AVU 
	for the 
	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
	of the 
	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:HE:AL:MH:MM:mh.rd.jh 
Copyright © 1972, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

6 NOVEMBER 1972R
Issue V
Revised & Reissued 28 July 1974 as BTB
(Revision in this type sty/e)
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER 1972
Issue V
SAME TITLE

(Attach to this BTB—BTB  20 June 70,
“Summary Report”.)

Auditor Admin Series 12R

THE SUMMARY REPORT FORM

The Summary Report Form is a report used simply as an exact record of what happened and what was observed during the session.

The form BTB  20 June 70, “SUMMARY REPORT” is used and the Auditor fills in the appropriate data.

USE OF SUMMARY REPORTS

With the introduction of C/S Series THE FANTASTIC NEW HGC LINE, Summary Report Forms were omitted from the admin procedure at Flag.

However, the use of Summary Report Forms is left entirely to the discretion of the C/S of an Org.

They are used extensively in training.

EVERY STUDENT AUDITOR ON COURSES AND CO-AUDIT MUST WRITE A SUMMARY REPORT FORM AFTER EACH SESSION.

It is a tool for increasing an Auditor’s obnosis of what goes on in a session. It teaches Auditors how to quickly and concisely analyze and report on a case.

FILLING IN THE REPORT

The Summary Report Form is filled in as follows:

1. 	The date.

2. 	The pc’s name and the Auditor’s name, in BLOCK letters.

3. 	The process run, the total tone arm action for the session and the length of the session in hours and minutes.

4. 	Goals are no longer set at the beginning of session but if the pc in passing mentions any goals he has attained, or more likely gains he has had in the session, these are noted at this point.
5. 	Aspects of running process—each of the questions 1 to 22 of the form are answered. Here write down briefly what the preclear was doing in the session. Do not write opinions with regard to what was happening or how the preclear was running the process. Here we are interested in the aspects of the case in relationship to the process or processes being run.

6. 	Ethics Report 	) 	These are written on the Auditor’s C/S
		)	Sheet per C/S Series 25.
7. 	Suggest     	) 	

The Summary should be done for the session given the preclear for the day. It is not stapled to the worksheets but is paper-clipped on top of the Auditor’s Report Form and beneath the Exam Report.

Two sessions in one day calls for only one Summary Report with the TA and data of each session.

It should be LEGIBLE and READABLE. If an Auditor’s handwriting is poor, it should be printed out by the Auditor.

Writing the reports should only take the Auditor 15 minutes to do at the most. Having just audited the preclear you should quite easily fill the report out.

References: 	HCO B 	14 June 65 	“Summary Report”
          	HCO B 	7 May 69 	“Summary of How to Write an Auditor’s
                       		Report”
          	HCO B 	5 Mar 71 	“C/S Series 25, The Fantastic New HGC Line”
          	BTB 	20 June 70 	“Summary Report”

                                    	Compiled by
                                    	Training & Services Bur

	Revised & Reissued as BTB 
	by Flag Mission 1234

                                    	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
                                    	2nd: Molly Harlow

	Authorized by AVU 
	for the 
	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
	of the 
	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:HE:AL:MH:MM:mh.rd.jh 
Copyright © 1972, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

20 JUNE 1970
Reissued 21 July 1974 as BTB
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JUNE 1970
SAME TITLE

SUMMARY REPORT

The auditor checks each one off and fills in the appropriate data.

	DATE:	

PC or PRE OT:	AUDITOR:	

PROCESS RUN:	TA:	TIME:	

GOALS AND GAINS:

ASPECTS AND GAINS:

1. 	How did pc do in relation to what was run?

2. 	Effectiveness of process.

3. 	Any free needles.

4. 	General needle behaviour.

5. 	Did TA go below 2.0 (how low)?	Did it come up?		

6. 	Did TA go high?	Did it come down?		

7. 	General TA range.

8. 	Emotional tone of the pc and whether this improved.

9. 	Any misemotion.

10. 	Preclear appearance.

11. 	Mannerisms.

12. 	Mannerism changes.

13. 	Any change in skin tone.

14. 	Did colour of eyes change?	Get brighter?	  Get dull?	

15. 	Any comm lags.
16. 	Any cognitions.

17. 	Any pains turn on	blown	

18. 	Any sensations turn on        	blown	
19. 	Any difficulties.
20. 	Did you complete C/S instructions?
21. 	Was pc happy at session end?
22. 	TA at session end            	Needle at session end	

ETHICS REPORT:

SUGGEST:

	James Fuller 

	Reissued as BTB 
	by Flag Mission 1234 

	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 
	2nd: Molly Harlow 

	Authorized by AVU

BDCS:SW:AL:MH:JFF.mh.jh	for the
Copyright © 1970,1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

6 NOVEMBER 1972RA
Issue IV
Remimeo	Revised & Reissued 30 August 1974 as BTB
Pc Examiner’s	Revised 20 November 1974
Hat
CANCELS
BTB OF 6 NOVEMBER 1972R
Issue IV
SAME TITLE

(Revisions are in this type sty/e)

Auditor Admin Series 11RA
(Attach to this BTB, HCO PL 8 Mar 71,
“Examiner’s Form”)

THE EXAM REPORT

The Exam Report is a report made out by the Qual Examiner when the Pc goes to Exams after session or goes on his own volition.

CONTENTS

The Exam Report contains the meter details, Pc’s indicators and statement.

The attached HCO PL “Examiner’s Form” is filled in as follows:

Top left:

If AFTER SESSION, put a tick on that line. If after Solo print SOLO on the line. If it is a query of the Pc requested by the C/S (and not after a session) print C/S QUERY on the line.

If VOLUNTEERED, put a large tick.

If MEDICAL, circle the word “Medical” then write ON (if Pc is going onto medical lines) or OFF on the line as the case may be, or REPORT if that’s what it is.

Top right:

QUAL DIV: When the stencil of HCO PL “Examiner’s Form” is made up in Mimeo, the Org’s name can be typed in on this line and so is reproduced on each Examiner’s Form and that saves a lot of writing.

DATE is noted, e.g. 4 June 72.

TIME is noted, e.g. 1803.

The Date and Time are important as it prevents altered sequence.

PC or PRE-OT NAME is printed in.

LAST GRADE ATTAINED: This is important from the C/S viewpoint as it saves him Dev-T in searching through the folder looking for it.
GRADE, COURSE OR ACTION BEING ATTESTED: Whatever it happens to be on declare—write DECLARE across the line and the Grade, State, Course or Action being declared.

PC STATEMENT: Write down exactly what Pc says. Note also what reads, BDs, and where his indicators change and vary, tone in which statements are made and so forth.

TA POSITION AND ANY BD: Note TA position at start of exam and TA position at end if different.

PC INDICATORS are judged on the following scale:

	VBIs	Very Bad Indicators
	BIs	Bad Indicators
	POOR	Poor Indicators
	OK	Indicators OK
	GIs	Good Indicators
	VGIs	Very Good Indicators
	VVGIs	VERY Very Good Indicators

However, any obvious manifestation that would be helpful for the C/S is noted.

Examples:

      	BIs    	Pc crying
      	BIs    	Pc frowning
      	VVGIs 	Pc radiant, skin tone very pink

STATE OF NEEDLE: This is important as different needle manifestations indicate different things, i.e. R/S, DN, RISE, etc.

Also on F/Ns note the size.

	Small F/N	= 	1” to 2”
	Normal F/N	= 	2” to 3”
	Wide F/N	= 	3” to 4”
	Dial F/N	= 	Floating from one pin to the other right across the dial
	Flopping F/N
	or 	Floating F/N
	or 	TA F/N	= 	Can’t get the needle on dial, just falls over.

On this it is sometimes possible to get TA range, e.g. needle comes on dial at 2.3 and again at 2.5. This would be indicated as TA F/N = 2.5 - 2.3.

Size of F/Ns is important. A TA F/N at session end, to a small F/N at Examiner, would indicate something out.

F/N INDICATED TO PC: If F/N has been indicated to the Pc write YES, if not write NO.

SIGNATURE OF EXAMINER: The form is signed by the person doing the Exam along this line.

SENSITIVITY: All Exams are done at proper sensitivity per HCO B 18 Mar 74, “E-Meter—Sensitivity Errors”.

FOOTPLATES: If a Pc is audited on footplates he or she must be examined on footplates. This is noted by writing FOOTPLATES above the TA reading.
RED TAGS Definitions:

A FLOATING NEEDLE “is the idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as 1” or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-Meter calibrated with the TA between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs in on the Pc. It can occur after a cognition blowdown of the TA or just moves into floating. The Pc may or may not voice the cognition.” LRH

A RED TAG EXAM is where the Examiner sees any one of the following manifestations in a Pc after a session:

1. 	Non-optimum TA position (above 3, below 2);

2. 	Non-optimum needle (ARC Break needle, stage 4, rockslam, stuck, still or dirty);

3. 	Bad Indicators as per BTB 26 April 1969, “Bad Indicators”;

4. 	Non-optimum statement from Pc, critical, hostile, belittling, sad, etc.

5. 	Sick report after session or within a few days of a Major Auditing Action.

6. 	Major Out Tech in session which could cause Pc trouble.

7. 	Flunked Declare? accompanied by a BER.

When a Red Tag Exam occurs the Examiner clips a red tag to the Exam Form. Red Tag folders must not be held onto by the Auditor until the end of the day. They go immediately to the C/S and get handled on a rush priority basis.

MEDICAL EXAM REPORTS

A Pc goes to the Medical Liaison Officer via the Examiner. The MLO writes up a report to the Ethics Officer. The Examiner takes a carbon copy (or copies the original Exam Form) and gives it immediately to the MLO and gets the original to Tech Services quickly. Tech Services pulls the folders and routes rapidly to the C/S or Staff C/S if a staff member is sick.

This MUST get into the Pc’s folder so the C/S does not order a major action done on a sick Pc.

The Exam Report is similarly handled when the Pc comes off MLO lines.

The MLO sends a daily report to the C/S on ALL persons on his lines with a final report when they route off with Exam attached.

LOCATION IN FOLDER

The Exam Report Form is put in the folder on top of the Auditor’s Report Form (or Summary Report if used).

Volunteered Exam Report Forms are put in the folder at the appropriate date.

It is the responsibility of Tech Services (HGC Admin) to see that these forms get into the folder.

References: 	HCO B 	21 Oct 68 	“Floating Needle”
          	HCO PL 	8 Sept 70 	“Examiner’s 24 Hour Rule”
          	HCO B 	5 Mar 71 	C/S Series 25, “The Fantastic New HGC Line”
          	BPL 	26 Jan 70 	“Examiner and Floating Needle”
          	Flag Ship Order 259
                 		3 Mar 71 	“Current C/S Policy”
          	BTB 	20 Jan 73RB 	C/S Series 86RB, “The Red Tag Line”
                          		Rev. 18.9.74

                                 	Compiled by
                                 	Training & Services Bur
	Revised & Reissued as BTB 
	by Flag Mission 1234
                                 	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
                                 	2nd: Molly Harlow

	Authorized by AVU 
BDCS:MD:AL:MH:BL:MM:mh.rd 	for the 
Copyright © 1972, 1974 	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 MARCH 1971
Remimeo
Examiner’s Hat	(Replaces and Revises HCO PLs of
Tech Services	9 May 69 and 26 Jan AD20, “Examiner’s Form”)
Hat
EXAMINER’S FORM

(Important Note: This form is handled exactly as per HCO P/L of 26 Jan AD20 AND NO EXAMINER MAY EXAMINE UNLESS STARRATED ON THAT P/L, and HCO B 5 Mar 71 (C/S Series 25) AND AN E-METER COURSE. Students and pcs can be very upset if this post’s duties are not done correctly and org pc and course results ruined.)

After Session	Qual Div	(Place)

Volunteered	Date	

Medical	Time	

Pc or Pre OT name		

Last Grade Attained		

Grade, Course or Action Being Attested		

Pc’s Statement (Write down exactly what pc says.)		

	

TA Position and any BD              	Pc Indicators	

State of Needle		

F/N Indicated to pc		

	 ________________________________
                                     	Signature of Examiner

ROUTE THIS FORM TO TECH SERVICES WHICH ROUTES IT INTO THE FOLDER.

WHEN ILLNESS REPORTED MAKE THIS OUT WITH A CARBON UNDER IT AND ROUTE ORIG TO T/S AND FOLDER AND CARBON TO MO OR QUAL SEC.

RUSH ROUTE ANY ROLLER COASTER LATER REPORT OR SICK RPT TO FOLDER TO PREVENT C/S ERRORS.

LRH:mes.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

5 NOVEMBER 1972R
Issue III
Revised & Reissued 9 September 1974 as BTB
(Revision in this type style)
Remimeo	
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 NOVEMBER 1972
Issue III
SAME TITLE

Auditor Admin Series 7R

THE FOLDER SUMMARY

The Folder Summary is written on sheets located on the inside of the Front Cover and is an adequate summary of the actions taken on a pc in consecutive order.

It is stapled inside the Front Cover of the pc’s current folder and requires the following data:

1. 	ADMIN DETAILS

Session date, length of time of session and admin time. When a new folder is started. The total time of a series of auditing sessions. When OCA taken. When an FES done.

2. 	PROCESS DETAILS

What was run and whether it ran. Mark an EP beside each action taken, or if it was not taken to EP mark in red UNFLAT, O/R, or whatever.

The listing question of an L&N action is written out in full.

R3R items are written out in full.

If an item or terminal R/Ses in session, it is noted in red on the Summary Report with the page number and circled.

Similarly an evil purpose arising in a session is marked in red with the date and circled.

3. 	EXAM REPORT

At the bottom of the process details mark F/N indicating an F/N occurred at the Examiner, or BER (red) if a Bad Exam Report. If TA was high or low at exam, it can also be noted.

4. 	ATTESTS

Date and what attested.
If pc sent to attest but did NOT this is noted.
5. 	ADVANCED COURSE DATA

Date started Advanced Course, Level, Date attested to Completion.

(The individual solo sessions are NOT noted but should be entered on a separate Folder Summary in the Advanced Course Folder.)

6. 	MEDICAL DATA

When pc reports sick.

Date and brief statement of illness.

Then a further entry when pc OFF M.O. Lines.

7. 	ETHICS DATA

Any Ethics cycles or Conditions.

A BLUE or BLACK pen is used for normal entries. A RED pen is used to mark any R/Sing item, Ev Purp, list or Dn item correction, BER, high or low TA at Exams, flubbed attest, medical action or Ethics cycle.

In the HGC the Auditor is responsible for keeping up this Summary after each session and immediately on receipt of a Medical Report or pc volunteered BER. It is standard part of the Auditor’s Session Admin.

When the pc goes into Advanced Courses all folders (HGC and any Advanced Course folders) go to the Advanced Course C/S who keeps the Case Progress Sheet, Yellow Sheet, and Summary Sheet in the HGC folder updated as outlined above.

The Solo Auditor keeps updated the separate Solo Folder Summary on the inside front cover of his current Solo Folder.

The Folder Summary Sheets are foolscap, divided into four columns. Below is an example of how the Folder Summary is kept:

FOLDER SUMMARY FORM

When a new pc starts auditing and the first folder is made up a copy of the attached form is stapled by two staples at the top to the inside front cover.

The form is mimeoed on lightweight paper so that it is not bulky.

The Auditor fills in this form as he progresses with the auditing.

New sheets are added as needed, earliest at the bottom to most recent on the top.

When a new folder is made up, ALL Summary Sheets are removed from the old folder and advanced to the inside cover of the new folder so that the completed Folder Summary of the case is always in the current HGC folder.

It is the HGC Admin’s responsibility to see that the above is done.

    Reference: 	Tape 	7 Apr 72 	Exp Dn Tape 3
                          			AUDITOR ADMINISTRATION

                                 	Compiled by
                                 	Training & Services Bur

	Revised & Reissued as BTB 
	by Flag Mission 1234

                                 	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
                                 	2nd: Molly Harlow

	Authorized by AVU 
	for the 
	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
	of the 
	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:MD:AL:MH:BL:MM:mh.rd 
Copyright © 1972, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

24 APRIL 1969R 
REVISED & REISSUED 8 SEPTEMBER 1974 AS BTB 
Remimeo 		                   (REVISION IN SCRIPT)
HGC Admin                           
All Auditors                                               CANCELS
D of P                                   HCO BULLETIN OF 24 APRIL 1969
                                                                SAME TITLE                                  

                                
PRECLEAR ASSESSMENT SHEET

Who Does Assessment

	The Auditor assigned to audit the preclear does the assessment. 

When is Assessment Done

	This assessment is done at the beginning of each Intensive the preclear has. If he is having 75 hours now, this Assessment Sheet is done at the beginning of the 75 hours. If the preclear comes back for a further 25 hours one week later, another Assessment Sheet is completed by the Auditor processing him whether it is the same Auditor or not. The reason for this is the preclear changes, his memory improves, and things can have happened in that one week he has not processed. 

Is this part of the Preclear’s Auditing time

	Yes, it is. The questions asked are to a degree auditing because the Auditor is asking the preclear to look and to recall. 

Purpose of Preclear Assessment Sheet

	The purpose of this form is to establish Auditor control over the preclear, to better acquaint the Auditor with his preclear, and to provide essential information required. 

To Whom is the Preclear Assessment Sheet Routed

	This Sheet is routed to the Director of Processing as soon as possible, at the first session break if the Auditor can do so. It must be routed at least by the end of the auditing day. After the Director of Processing reviews the Sheet, it is returned to the Auditor for keeping in his folder on the preclear. 

Neatness of Preclear Assessment Sheet

	If you cannot write plainly and neatly, print all the data required. Information is wanted, not mysterious cryptographics. 

PRECLEAR ASSESSMENT SHEET

								Date _______________________

Name of PC ___________________________________ 	Age of PC __________________

Auditor _______________________________________ 	D of P’s initials ______________
TA Position at Start of Assessment ______________________________________________
A. 	FAMILY

1. 	Is mother living? _________________	E-Meter reaction ___________________

2. 	Date of Death _____________________	E-Meter reaction ___________________ 

3. 	PCs statement of relationship with mother ___________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________	E-Meter reaction ___________________

4. 	Is Father living? __________________	E-Meter reaction ___________________

5. 	Date of Death _____________________	E-Meter reaction ___________________

6. 	PC’s statement of relationship with Father ___________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________	E-Meter reaction ___________________

7. 	List brothers, sisters, and other relatives of the PC, Date of death of any and E-Meter reaction:

        Relation		   	        Date of death		     E-Meter reaction

__________________	__________________	__________________
	
__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

8.	Where and with whom do you live? ________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

9.	Are you currently associated with any one who is antagonistic to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology ? ( if yes, who? ) 

___________________________________________________________________________

B.	MARITAL STATUS:

1.	Married ________	Single_______       Number of times Divorced______________

2.	PCs statement of relationship with spouse ___________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________	E-Meter reaction___________________

3.	List any marital difficulties PC presently has_________________________________

_________________________________________	E-Meter reaction___________________

4.	If divorced, list reasons for divorce and PCs emotional feeling about divorce ___________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________	E-Meter reaction___________________

5.	List children, date of death of any child and E-Meter reaction:

            Children		       Date of Death		     E-Meter reaction

__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

__________________	__________________	__________________

C.	EDUCATIONAL LEVEL:

	State the level of schooling PC has had, University education,  or professional training ___________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________	E-Meter reaction___________________

D.	PROFESSIONAL LIFE:

	State main jobs PC has held.

			     Job 				              E-Meter reaction 
	 
________________________________________________	_______________

________________________________________________	_______________

________________________________________________	_______________

________________________________________________	_______________

________________________________________________	_______________

E.	ACCIDENTS:

	List any serious accidents PC has had, the date of such, any permanent damage, and E-Meter reaction.

            Accident	         Date	       Physical damage             E-Meter reaction 
__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

f.	ILLNESSES:

	List any serious illness ( excepting usual childhood diseases, colds etc ) giving date of such, any permanent physical damage, and E-Meter reaction.

             Illness	         Date 	        Physical Damage           E-Meter reaction

__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

__________________  ___________  ___________________  _________________

G.	OPERATIONS:

	List any operation, the date of each and E-Meter reaction.

               Operation                                   Date                              E-Meter reaction 

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

H.	PRESENT PHYSICAL CONDITION:

	List any bad physical condition PC presently has and E-Meter Reaction to such.

                               Physical Condition		                      E-Meter reaction 

_________________________________________________   __________________

_________________________________________________   __________________

_________________________________________________   __________________

_________________________________________________   __________________

I.	MENTAL TREATMENT:
	List any psychiatric, psycho- analytic, hypnotic, mystical or occult exercises, or other mental treatment which PC has had, the date of the treatment and E-Meter reaction.

              Treatment                                   Date                               E-Meter reaction 

______________________	______________________	____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

J.	DRUGS:

	Are you taking any drugs currently?

               What Drug                         Date(how long)                    E-Meter reaction 

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

	Have you ever taken drugs?

               What Drug                         Date(how long)                    E-Meter reaction 

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

K.	DISABILITY PAYMENT OR PENSION:

	List any disability payment or pension received by the PC, what it is for, how much and for how long it has been received.

            What for                      How much                Duration          E-Meter reaction
__________________   __________________   ___________   ________________

__________________   __________________   ___________   ________________

L.	ANY FAMILY HISTORY OF INSANITY:

               Who                               What                      When            E-Meter reaction

__________________   __________________   ___________   ________________

__________________   __________________   ___________   ________________

__________________   __________________   ___________   ________________

__________________   __________________   ___________   ________________

__________________   __________________   ___________   ________________

__________________   __________________   ___________   ________________

__________________   __________________   ___________   ________________

M.	MEDICINES:

	List any medicine currently or previously taken.

                   What                                     When                            E-Meter reaction

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

N.	EYES:						       E-Meter reaction

Any tint in Eye White	______________________   _____________________

Eye colour			______________________   _____________________

Colour Blindness		______________________   _____________________

Glasses			______________________   _____________________

O.	BODY WEIGHT:		       			       E-Meter reaction

Overweight?    __________________________________   _____________________

Underweight?  __________________________________   _____________________

P.	ANY PERCEPTION DIFFICULTIES:		       E-Meter reaction

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

Q.	ANY PERCEPTION TROUBLE IN FAMILY:                 E-Meter reaction

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

R.	SICK OR DISABLED FAMILY:			        E-Meter reaction

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

S.	EARLIER ALLIES OR CLOSE FRIENDS:	         E-Meter reaction

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

T.   	HUSBAND OR WIFE PHYSICAL TROUBLE                E-Meter reaction

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

U.	ATTITUDE TOWARDS ILLNESS:		         E-Meter reaction

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

W.	ANY CURRENT TREATMENT IN PROGRESS             E-Meter reaction

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

X.	COMPULSIONS, REPRESSIONS & FEARS:

	List any compulsions ( things the PC feels compelled to do ) , repressions 
	( things PC must prevent himself from doing ) and any fears of PC.

                             Compulsions , etc			                   E-Meter reaction

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________
______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

	Are you trying to change something someone else doesn’t like?

_____________________________________________________________________

Y.	CRIMINAL RECORD:

	List any crime committed by PC, prison sentence, if any , and E-Meter reactions:

                  Crime                                   Sentence                         E-Meter reaction

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

______________________   ______________________   _____________________

Z.	INTERESTS AND HOBBIES:	                  	      E-Meter reaction

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

ARE YOU HERE ON YOUR OWN SELF DETERMINISM?

______________________________________________   _____________________

AA.	ANY PREVIOUS SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSING:

1.	List auditors, hours, and E-Meter reaction to any processing done 
	other than in HGC or Academy.

                 Auditor                                    Hours                            E-Meter reaction

______________________   ______________________   ______________________

______________________   ______________________   ______________________

______________________   ______________________   ______________________

______________________   ______________________   ______________________

2.	List briefly processes run ___________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

3.	List goals attained from such processing _______________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

BB.	PRESENT PROCESSING GOALS: 
	List all present goals of PC and E-Meter reaction to each:

                                          Goal                                                     E-Meter reaction

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

______________________________________________   _____________________

Tone Arm position at end of Assessment           _______________________________

Compiled by
MARY SUE HUBBARD

BDCS:MSH:mh
Copyright © 1969, 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 JULY 1971
Remimeo
Execs
HCO Dept 3
Dissem Dept 6
Dist
Tech
Course Supers

PARENT OR GUARDIAN ASSENT FORMS
( Amends HCO Pol Ltr 23 April 1968 Issue III
and 23 May 1969 )

	The following form MUST be used when a minor requires ANY service.

	This form is to be filled in by the parent or guardian of the minor concerned and is a prerequisite before any Dianetic or Scientology processing, testing or training can be undertaken:

PARENT OR GUARDIAN ASSENT TO DIANETIC OR SCIENTOLOGY
PROCESSING, TESTING OR TRAINING.

I 
 ***********************************************************
of
   **********************************************************
do  hereby  attest  that  I give  my  full  consent  for  my  Child/Ward

					     to be tested, audited or trained
******************************** 
in the				        	     Scientology Organisation and that 
          ***************************
I understand that all auditing received will be on the standard Dianetic or Scientology processes administered by an Auditor who is a student of Scientology, and that all training administered will be standard training for that particular Course or Level.

	  I further understand that Scientology is known to be a spiritual and religious guide intended to make persons more aware of themselves as spiritual beings and not treating or diagnosing any human ailments of body or mind whatsoever.

Date						Signature
       **************************                 		********************
						Address
							       	********************

							       	********************

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 AUGUST 1971
Issue II
Remimeo
Courses
Checksheets

TRAINING DRILLS MODERNIZED

(Revises 17 APRIL 1961.
This HCO B cancels the following:

            	Original	HCOB 17 April 1961,	“Training Drills Modernized”
            	Revised	HCO B 5 Jan 1971, 	“Training Drills Modernized”
            	Revised	HCO B 21 June 1971, 	“Training Drills Modernized”
                 	Issue III
                 	HCO B 25 May 1971, 	“The TR Course”

This HCO B is to replace all other issues of
TRs 04 in all packs and checksheets.)

Due to the following factors, I have modernized TRs 0 to 4.

1. 	The auditing skill of any student remains only as good as he can do his TRs.

2. 	Flubs in TRs are the basis of all confusion in subsequent efforts to audit.

3. 	If the TRs are not well learned early in Scientology training courses, THE BALANCE OF THE COURSE WILL FAIL AND SUPERVISORS AT UPPER LEVELS WILL BE TEACHING NOT THEIR SUBJECTS BUT TRS.

4. 	Almost all confusions on Meter, Model Sessions and Scientology or Dianetic processes stem directly from inability to do the TRs.

5. 	A student who has not mastered his TRs will not master anything further.

6. 	Scientology or Dianetic processes will not function in the presence of bad TRs. The preclear is already being overwhelmed by process velocity and cannot bear up to TR flubs without ARC breaks.

Academies were tough on TRs up to 1958 and have since tended to soften. Comm Courses are not a tea party.

These TRs given here should be put in use at once in all auditor training, in Academy and HGC and in the future should never be relaxed.

Public courses on TRs are NOT “softened” because they are for the Public. Absolutely no standards are lowered. THE PUBLIC ARE GIVEN REAL TRS ROUGH, TOUGH AND HARD. To do otherwise is to lose 90% of the results. There is nothing pale and patty-cake about TRs.

THIS HCO B MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. IT DOES NOT MEAN SOMETHING ELSE. IT DOES NOT IMPLY ANOTHER MEANING. IT IS NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION FROM ANOTHER SOURCE.
THESE TRS ARE DONE EXACTLY PER THIS HCOB WITHOUT ADDED ACTIONS OR CHANGE.

NUMBER:  OT TR 0 1971

NAME:  Operating Thetan Confronting.

COMMANDS:  None.

POSITION:  Student and coach sit facing each other with eyes closed, a comfortable distance apart—about three feet.

PURPOSE:  To train student to be there comfortably and confront another person. The idea is to get the student able to BE there comfortably in a position three feet in front of another person, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there.

TRAINING STRESS:  Student and coach sit facing each other with eyes closed. There is no conversation. This is a silent drill. There is NO twitching, moving, confronting with a body part, “system” or vias used to confront or anything else added to BE there. One will usually see blackness or an area of the room when one’s eyes are closed. BE THERE, COMFORTABLY, AND CONFRONT.

When a student can BE there comfortably and confront and has reached a major stable win, the drill is passed.

HISTORY:  Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in June 71 to give an additional gradient to confronting and eliminate students confronting with their eyes, blinking, etc. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in August 1971 after research discoveries on TRs.

NUMBER: TR 0 CONFRONTING REVISED 1961

NAME:  Confronting Preclear.

COMMANDS:  None.

POSITION:  Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about three feet.

PURPOSE:  To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to be there comfortably in a position three feet in front of a preclear, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there.

TRAINING STRESS:  Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, blink, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. It will be found the student tends to confront WITH a body part, rather than just confront, or to use a system of confronting rather than just BE there. The drill is misnamed if Confronting means to DO something to the pc. The whole action is to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending self. Confronting with a body part can cause somatics in that body part being used to confront. The solution is just to confront and BE there. Student passes when he can just BE there and confront and he has reached a major stable win.

HISTORY:  Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be “interesting”. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard April 1961 on finding that S.O.P. Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in August 1971 after research discoveries on TRs.
NUMBER: TR 0 BULLBAIT REVISED 1961

NAME:  Confronting Bullbaited.

COMMANDS:  Coach: “Start” “That’s it” “Flunk”.

POSITION:  Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about three feet.

PURPOSE:  To train student to confront a preclear with auditing or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to BE there comfortably in a position three feet in front of the preclear without being thrown off, distracted or reacting in any way to what the preclear says or does.

TRAINING STRESS:  After the student has passed TR 0 and he can just BE there comfortably, “bull baiting” can begin. Anything added to BEING THERE is sharply flunked by the coach. Twitches, blinks, sighs, fidgets, anything except just being there is promptly flunked, with the reason why.

PATTER:  Student coughs. Coach: “Flunk! You coughed. Start.” This is the whole of the coach’s patter as a coach.

PATTER AS A CONFRONTED SUBJECT:  The coach may say anything or do anything except leave the chair. The student’s “buttons” can be found and tromped on hard. Any words not coaching words may receive no response from the student. If the student responds, the coach is instantly a coach (see patter above). Student passes when he can BE there comfortably without being thrown off or distracted or reacting in any way to anything the coach says or does and has reached a major stable win.

HISTORY:  Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be “interesting”. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard April 1961 on finding that S.O.P. Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in August 1971 after research discoveries on TRs.

NUMBER: TR 1 REVISED 1961

NAME:  Dear Alice.

PURPOSE:   To train the student to deliver a command newly and in a new unit of time to a preclear without flinching or trying to overwhelm or using a via.

COMMANDS:   A phrase (with the “he saids” omitted) is picked out of the book “Alice in Wonderland” and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach is satisfied it arrived where he is.

POSITION:  Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS:  The command goes from the book to the student and, as his own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may have.

The coach must have received the command (or question) clearly and have understood it before he says “Good”.

PATTER:  The coach says “Start”, says “Good” without a new start if the command is received, or says “Flunk” if the command is not received. “Start” is not used again. “That’s it” is used to terminate for a discussion or to end the activity. If session is terminated for a discussion, coach must say “Start” again before it resumes.

This drill is passed only when the student can put across a command naturally, without strain or artificiality or elocutionary bobs and gestures, and when the student can do it easily and relaxedly.

HISTORY:  Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard 1961 to increase auditing ability.

NUMBER: TR 2 REVISED 1961

NAME:  Acknowledgements.

PURPOSE:  To teach student that an acknowledgement is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgement is a full stop.

COMMANDS.  The coach reads lines from “Alice in Wonderland” omitting “he saids” and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any line he feels was not truly acknowledged.

POSITION:  Student and coach are seated facing each other at a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS:  Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said. Curb over and under acknowledgement. Let student do anything at first to get acknowledgement across, then even him out. Teach him that an acknowledgement is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or an encouragement to the preclear to go on.

To teach further that one can fail to get an acknowledgement across or can fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgement or can take a pc’s head off with an acknowledgement.

PATTER:   The coach says “Start”, reads a line and says “Flunk” every time the coach feels there has been an improper acknowledgement. The coach repeats the same line each time the coach says “Flunk”. “That’s it” may be used to terminate for discussion or terminate the session. “Start” must be used to begin a new coaching after a “That’s it”.

HISTORY:   Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new students that an acknowledgement ends a communication cycle and a period of time, that a new command begins a new period of time. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: TR 3 REVISED 1961

NAME:   Duplicative Question.

PURPOSE:   To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with other questions, and to acknowledge it. To teach that one never asks a second question until he has received an answer to the one asked.

COMMANDS:   “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?”

POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS:   One question and student acknowledgement of its answer in one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into variations of command. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before.
The student must learn to give a command and receive an answer and to acknowledge it in one unit of time.

The student is flunked if he or she fails to get an answer to the question asked, if he or she fails to repeat the exact questions, if he or she Q and As with excursions taken by the coach.

PATTER:   The coach uses “Start” and “That’s it”, as in earlier TRs. The coach is not bound after starting to answer the student’s question but may comm lag or give a commenting type answer to throw the student off. Often the coach should answer.

Somewhat less often the coach attempts to pull the student in to a Q and A or upset the student. Example:

Student: “Do fish swim?” Coach: “Yes.” Student: “Good . “ Student: “Do fish swim?” Coach: “Aren’t you hungry?” Student: “Yes.” Coach: “Flunk.”

When the question is not answered, the student must say, gently, “I’ll repeat the auditing question,” and do so until he gets an answer. Anything except commands, acknowledgement and, as needed, the repeat statement, is flunked. Unnecessary use of the repeat statement is flunked. A poor command is flunked. A poor acknowledgement is flunked. A Q and A is flunked (as in example). Student misemotion or confusion is flunked. Student failure to utter the next command without a long comm lag is flunked. A choppy or premature acknowledgement is flunked. Lack of an acknowledgement (or with a distinct comm lag) is flunked. Any words from the coach except an answer to the question, “Start”, “Flunk”, “Good” or “That’s it”, should have no influence on the student except to get him to give a repeat statement and the command again. By repeat statement is meant, “I’ll repeat the auditing command.”

“Start”, “Flunk”, “Good” and “That’s it” may not be used to fluster or trap the student. Any other statement under the sun may be. The coach may try to leave his chair in this TR. If he succeeds it is a flunk. The coach should not use introverted statements such as “I just had a cognition.” “Coach divertive” statements should all concern the student, and should be designed to throw the student off and cause the student to lose session control or track of what the student is doing. The student’s job is to keep a session going in spite of anything, using only command, the repeat statement or the acknowledgement. The student may use his or her hands to prevent a “Blow” (leaving) of the coach. If the student does anything else than the above, it is a flunk and the coach must say so.

HISTORY:   Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to overcome variations and sudden changes in sessions. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. The old TR has a comm bridge as part of its training but this is now part of and is taught in Model Session and is no longer needed at this level. Auditors have been frail in getting their questions answered. This TR was redesigned to improve that frailty.

NUMBER: TR 4 REVISED 1961

NAME:   Preclear Originations.

PURPOSE:   To teach the student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear throughout an origination.

COMMANDS:   The student runs “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” on coach. Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared list given by Supervisor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction of coach.

POSITION:   Student and coach sit facing each other at a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS:   The student is taught to hear origination and do three things. 1. Understand it; 2. Acknowledge it; and 3. Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the student into better handling.

PATTER:   All originations concern the coach, his ideas, reactions or difficulties, none concern the auditor. Otherwise the patter is the same as in earlier TRs. The student’s patter is governed by: 1 . Clarifying and understanding the origin. 2. Acknowledging the origin. 3. Giving the repeat statement “I’ll repeat the auditing command,” and then giving it. Anything else is a flunk.

The auditor must be taught to prevent ARC breaks and differentiate between a vital problem that concerns the pc and a mere effort to blow session. (TR 3 Revised.) Flunks are given if the student does more than 1. Understand; 2. Acknowledge; 3. Return pc to session.

Coach may throw in remarks personal to student as on TR 3. Student’s failure to differentiate between these (by trying to handle them) and coach’s remarks about self as “pc” is a flunk.

Student’s failure to persist is always a flunk in any TR but here more so. Coach should not always read from list to originate, and not always look at student when about to comment. By Originate is meant a statement or remark referring to the state of the coach or fancied case. By Comment is meant a statement or remark aimed only at student or room. Originations are handled, Comments are disregarded by the student.

HISTORY:   Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1961 to teach an auditor more about handling origins and preventing ARC breaks.

As TR 5 is also part of the CCHs it can be disregarded in the Comm Course TRs despite its appearance on earlier lists for students and staff auditors.

TRAINING NOTE

It is better to go through these TRs several times getting tougher each time than to hang on one TR forever or to be so tough at start student goes into a decline.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH:jw.JR:JS:nt.pe.rd 
Copyright © 1961, 1971 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 OCTOBER 1971

Remimeo 
Add to E-Meter Books 
Checksheets

FALSE TA

Some pcs have a very difficult time in auditing due solely to can (electrode) outnesses.

Some auditors have heavy losses because they do not realize the troubles that can come from electrodes and thus remedy them.

TA USE

The TA must be between 2 and 3 for a correct F/N.

When the TA is reading falsely a pc can be butchered.

Example: Auditor talking the TA down. It gets to “3.1” by his meter. So he gets the pc to talk a bit more to get the TA between 2 and 3 and F/N. The TA suddenly rises to 3.8.

Pc and Auditor go desperate. What has happened is that the TA was a false read. It was really reading 2.9 and F/Ning but for reasons given below it read “3.1”. Thus the auditor overran the F/N and by keeping on invalidated the release, pulled the pc’s attention out of session and demanded more than the pc had to give.

Example: Auditor 2 way communicating with pc to get the TA up from “1.8”. The TA suddenly sinks to 1.6, pc goes into apathy.

What happened was a missed F/N. For reasons covered below the TA at 1.8 was false and was really at 2.1 and F/Ning.

Example: Pc being asked for an earlier similar incident because TA is at “4.0”. Pc can’t get one, gets desperate, TA goes to 5.0.

For reasons given below the TA was at 3.0 but was reading falsely at “4.0”.

Some cases get upset at the very idea of F/N when these mistakes are made.

More than one case has missed all his wins for a year because of a false TA.

So it is very important to know how a false TA comes about and how to avoid it.

A properly set up meter with cans (electrodes) fitted to a pc who is holding them properly IS ALWAYS CORRECT.

However, totally false Tone Arm readings can exist and an auditor must know how these come about.

TRIM

A meter can be improperly trimmed (not set at 2.0 with the trim knob) and can give a false TA position.
Further, when a meter is not left on a minute or two before trimming, it can drift in the session and give a slightly false TA.

The trim can be quietly checked in mid-session by snapping out the jack where the cord goes into the box and putting the TA on 2, seeing if the needle is now on SET. If not, the trim knob can be moved to adjust it. The jack is quietly slipped back in. All without distracting the pc.

DISCHARGED

A cadmium cell meter discharges very suddenly when it does go flat.

In mid-session the meter can run out of battery. The TA will cease to act well and may go very false.

The remedy is to keep a meter charged at least one hour for every 10 of auditing for 240 AC volt charging current, or 2 hours for every 10 of auditing on a 110 AC volt charging current.

A meter lasts much longer than this in practice but the above is very safe.

Before each session snap the knob over to TEST. The needle should hit hard on the right side of the face. It can even bounce. This guarantees lots of charge in the battery and no chance of a meter going flat in session.

If the needle doesn’t snap to the right hard or if it doesn’t quite get there on TEST, then that meter will go flat in mid-session and give false TA and no reads or TA on hot subjects.

ONE HAND ELECTRODE

A single hand electrode with two terminals separated by a rubber works. BUT it always gives a falsely high TA.

A Solo auditor who does not know this can get a release point and go half mad wondering why he is F/Ning at 4.0!

The answer is to make a “single hand” electrode out of two small cans (about 33 inches by 21/8 inches or 91/2 cm by 51/2 cm) (or even smaller for a very small-handed pc). Glue a thin circle of foam rubber solidly to the bottom of one can so it reaches out slightly around the bottom. (Don’t glue it up the sides.)

Put the alligator jaw clips one to each can. Now put the can bottoms together and hold them in one hand. Mark the TA (1)—meaning one hand (such as 3.75 (1) ). Now take the cans one in each hand and mark the TA (2)—meaning two hands (such as 3.0

Audit with them in one hand. Keep your worksheet with (1) marks (such as 3.5 (1) ). Check at start and middle and end by taking a can in each hand and putting down the 2 can read (such as 2.5 (2) ).

It is too much trouble to totally change cans and the distraction can change the TA read.

This two small can arrangement is not quite accurate. It gives a lower TA than big cans. But the difference is slight. It can scare you with a 1.9 when trim is 2.0 and real TA is 2.0. If this happens check with big cans.

(As an added tip a solo auditor usually keeps the back of his hand on his leg while solo auditing. The small 71/2 volt current gives a tingle to the leg that is distracting when one’s hand is moist. Put a piece of foam rubber in a plastic sack. Lay the sack on the leg, put your hand on this pad. It insulates the area and is very comfortable.)

MOIST HANDS

When a pc’s hands sweat a lot you will get a low TA.

Contrary to 19th Century superstition the meter does not work on sweat. Very sweaty hands as found on nervous persons give a false TA. It goes low.

Many “low  TA cases” are just sweaty hand cases.

Paper handkerchiefs (Kleenex) are a standard item for an auditing room—for grief charges and burning eyes, etc. These should be available.

If the TA is low, check if the pc’s hands are wet. If so, have him wipe them and get a new read. It is usually found that the 1.6 was really 2.0. Or the 1.6 was really 1.8 and the trim was 1.8 = 2.0.

Have the pc wipe hands, check and correct trim before you by-pass all a “low TA’s” F/Ns!

TAs can go low. Invalidation of the pc, lousy TRs can drive one low. If so the TA comes back up on repair.

But don’t brand a case a low TA case until you make sure his hands are dried and the meter trimmed.

Also, very small cans or cans too small for the pc can give a slightly low reading.

DRY HANDS

Some pcs have extremely dry hands, usually from industrial chemicals such as chlorine in dishwater or skin scale.

This can give a wildly high TA.

The pc can be worried to death with high TA repairs when in fact he just doesn’t have contact with the electrode.

Metal foot plates connected to the meter and the pc barefooted in session will usually handle.

A quick test is have the pc put the cans under his armpits and you’ll see if it’s his calloused or chemically dried-out hands.

ARTHRITIC HANDS

A rare pc is so crippled with arthritis that he doesn’t make contact fully with the cans.

This gives a high TA.

Use foot plates or wide wrist straps and you’ll get a right read.

SLACK GRIP

Sometimes a rare pc lets his hands go slack on the cans, particularly if they are the wrong size cans, too big.

This gives a mysterious “high TA”. It is false. The TA will come down only to 3.2 and F/N and of course an overrun then really gives a high TA. And the pc goes a bit frantic and begins to believe things don’t erase or release.

Keep the pc’s hands in sight. Check the pc’s grip. Get smaller cans.

CAN SIZE

The most common fault is wrong can size.

For a normal or large-handed pc the can size is about 4 7/8 inches by 2 5/8 inches or 121/2 cm by 7 cm. This can be altered as big as 41/2 inches by 3 inches diameter or 11 cm by 8 cm. This is Standard.

This can is too large for people with small hands. These should use a can 33/4 inches by 2 1/8 inches or 9 cm by 5 cm diameter or thereabouts.

A small child would be lost even with that can. So a small 35 mm film can could be used. This is 2 inches long by 1 3/16 inches diameter or 5 cm by 3 cm. This works but watch it as these cans are aluminum. They do work but test for true read with a slightly larger can and then trim to adjust for the aluminum if any different.

Cans of course should be STEEL with a thin tin plating. Regular soup cans.

Can size to match the pc avoids slack can grip or tiring the hands into going slack, giving the auditor 3.2 F/Ns and trouble.

COLD PC

A pc who is too cold sometimes has a falsely high TA.

Wrap him in a blanket or get a warmer auditing room.

The auditing environment is the responsibility of the auditor.

LATE AT NIGHT

Between 2 and 3 AM or late at night a pc’s TA may be very high. The time depends on when he sleeps usually.

This TA will be found normal in regular hours.

RINGS

Rings on the pc’s hands must always be removed. They don’t influence TA but they give a false Rockslam.

FLOATING TA

Many an auditor before now has gone a bit mad trying to handle a floating TA. They are not very common and are startling.

What happens is the pc is so released the needle can’t be gotten onto the dial. The needle is swinging wider than the meter dial both ways from center and appears to lay first on one side then the other. The TA can’t be moved fast enough to keep the extreme floating needle on the dial.

This gives a false TA of sorts as it can’t be read.

Some auditors seeing it for the first time have even sent the pc out of the room so they could “adjust” the meter or get another one!

Thus the very highest state of release can be invalidated as where is  the TA?

RUSTY CORRODED CANS

You’d think soup was very expensive the way some auditors hold onto old cans.

Corroded cans can falsify TA. Get new ones now and then.

TIGHT SHOES

And then there was the vain lady who wore shoes too small for her feet.

She removed them every session. The session went well each time.

Then she put on her agonizing shoes and went to the Examiner and the C/Ses and auditors all went mad trying to find out why every Exam had a high TA.

Tight shoes.

The E-Meter is accurate. It is a lovely instrument.

You have to fit the pc to it.

Good luck.

LRH: nt.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1971	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 FEBRUARY 1972

Remimeo
All Tech
Qual Terminals

FALSE TA ADDITION 2

Reference:	HCO B 24 Oct 71	False TA
	HCO B 12 Nov 71	False TA Addition
	C/S Series 53 	HI-LO TA Assessment
		Int Ext Correction List

There is an infinity of wrong ways to get a pc to read between 2.0 and 3.0 on an E-Meter.

One method would be to shoot him. Dead bodies read between 2.0 and 3.0.

Another way is to throw the trim knob off.

Yet another wrong way is to use HAND CREAM to make the TA go lower and call “F/Ns” at 4.0 on an actual read.

An auditor who is not very expert is apt to find strange ways to do things because the usual is beyond his skill.

A GOOD auditor handles low and high TAs with HCO B 24 Oct 71 and Addition 12 Nov 71 and this HCO B “False TA”, C/S Series 53 and the Hi-Lo TA Assessment.

The commonest sources of high TA are PROTEST, OVERRUN and out INTERIORIZATION RD and too big or too small cans.

The commonest sources of low TA are overwhelming auditor TRs or wet sweaty hands.

The subject is not open to experimentation. If a pc’s TA is low or high and you don’t correct it with the usual remedies mentioned above, the pc goes into the soup.

GOOD AUDITORS KNOW THEIR TECH AND USE IT TO REMEDY HIGH AND LOW TAs.

GOOD AUDITORS DO HONEST WORKSHEETS AND HONEST AUDITING.

BE A GOOD AUDITOR.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH: ne.rd 
Copyright © 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 FEBRUARY 1972
Issue I

Remimeo
FALSE TA ADDITION 3

(There are now four False TA HCO Bs including this one.
These were issued as more data was uncovered.)

HCO B 24 Oct 71 False TA
HCO B 12 Nov 71 False TA Addition
HCO B 15 Feb 72 False TA Addition 2
and this one
HCO B 18 Feb 72 False TA Addition 3

A meter is a meter.

Meters are used to measure water, natural gas, and many other things.

An E meter is used to measure a pc.

If you rig a meter up so as to falsify its reads you get a wrong result.

You could rig up a water meter so it read that twice as much water had flowed and then sit around and wonder all week why the swimming pool never filled up.

The ACCURACY of a meter depends upon its being honestly set up and honestly used.

The HONESTY of the auditor determines his results.

The whole field of psychotherapy was dishonest from the days of witch doctors to psychiatry. Falsified data came from lack of knowledge of the mind. This made its practitioners DISHONEST.

We do not and must not follow that fatal road.

The technology we have WORKS to definite positive predictable results.

Results are obtained if the auditor has honestly studied and understood his materials and honestly applies them.

Falsifying study leads to falsifying meters and this gives bad results on pcs.

HONEST use of the materials and the meter gives an honest result.

One who does not know his materials and who cannot do his drills then thinks he has to make a meter cheat.

HONEST use of the meter by an HONEST auditor is the route to GOOD RESULTS.

LOW TAs

A bad practice has arisen to “beat” the low TA.
This is to have the pc wipe his hands every few minutes to get the TA up above 2.0.

Not only does this distract the pc and yank him out of session, but it is by inference putting his attention on the meter, a thing a good auditor does NOT do in a formal session. The pc’s attention must be on his own case in a session, not on the meter or his hands.

An answer to low TA because of wet hands is foot plates.

But the best answer is to get the pc up scale so he doesn’t have perspiring hands.

Overwhelming TRs is the commonest reason for low TAs. Not all the hand wiping in the world will cure poor TRs.

Some auditors “spook” (leap off the road like a horse frightened by something blowing along) at the very thought of high or low TAs. This is because they haven’t got the TRs to handle a low TA nor the tech to handle a high one.

Making a meter read falsely low with cream or falsely high with talcum powder or wiping hands continually will not handle the pc’s CASE.

That is what the auditor is there to do, not make his session look good!

The funniest one I have ever heard was a Solo auditor who had high TA trouble. So he used to fill up a bathtub with scalding water, fill the bathroom full of clouds of steam and then sit in the bath, holding onto his electrodes “Solo auditing”.

It gave him a lower TA but it sure didn’t give him any case result.

We maybe ought to have a contest as to who can come up with the most comical actual instances of falsifying meter reads.

One “auditor” “solved it” by just calling F/Ns whenever she got tired of the pc regardless of TA position. After a year or more of this she saw the light and put herself in Ethics.

The funny part is that her co-auditor had been doing the same thing on her!

HONEST TA IS THE BEST POLICY.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH: ne.rd 
Copyright © 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 FEBRUARY 1972R

REVISED 23 NOVEMBER 1973
Remimeo
All Levels
All Auditors
All Tech Checksheets

FALSE TA CHECKLIST

Ref:	HCO B 24 Oct 71 	False TA
	HCO B 12 Nov 71 	False TA Addition
	HCO B 15 Feb 72 	False TA Addition 2
	HCO B 18 Feb 72 	False TA Addition 3
	HCO B 24 Jan 73 	Examiner and False TA
	HCO B 24 Nov 73 	C/S 53RF
	HCO B 23 Nov 73 	Dry and Wet Hands
                             		Make False TA

The following are the items to be checked by an auditor on any pc. It need only be done once unless the check itself is suspected false, or if conditions of the pc’s hands, etc change.

The checklist is kept in the pc folder and is entered on the folder summary as an action done.

The value of operating with correct can size should not be underestimated, the reference HCO Bs state why.

The auditor signs and answers the following points on the checklist, and gets answers from the pc where needed.
_________

R-Factor to pc: “We are going to check the cans and adjust them to get the best accuracy.”

1. 	Is the meter charged fully?	_________

2. 	Is the meter trimmed correctly?	_________

3. 	Are the leads connected to the meter and cans?	_________

4. 	Are the cans rusty?	_________

5. 	Are pc’s hands excessively dry requiring vanishing cream?	_________

6. 	Are the pc’s hands excessively wet requiring powder?	_________

7. 	The pc is NOT   being told continually to wipe his hands?	_________

8. 	The pc’s grip on the cans is NOT   being continually checked by the
	auditor in a way that interrupts the pc?	_________

9. 	TA position on large cans?	_________
		Size approx 4 7/8 inches by 2 5/8 inches or 12 1/2 cm by 7 cm
10. 	TA position on medium cans?	_________
		Size approx 3 3/4 inches by 2 1/8 inches or 9 cm by 5 cm

 11. 	TA position on small cans?	_________
		Size approx 2 inches by 1 3/16 inches or 5 cm by 3 cm

12. 	Are the cans too large for pc?	_________

13. 	Are the cans too small for pc?	_________

14. 	Are the cans just right in size?	_________

15. 	Are the cans cold?	_________

16. 	Are the pc’s hands dry or calloused?	_________

17. 	Does the pc have arthritic hands?	_________

18. 	TA position on foot plates?	_________

	(Foot plates are used and TA checked on them when the answer to
	16 & 17 is affirmative.)

19. 	Are the pc’s feet calloused or excessively wet or dry?	_________

20. 	Does the pc loosen his grip on the cans?	_________

21. 	Check the pc’s grip, does he hold the cans correctly? (See E-Meter
	Drill 5.)	_________

22. 	Is the pc hot?	_________

22a.	Is the pc well slept?	_________

23. 	Is the pc cold?	_________

23a.	Is the pc hungry?	_________

24. 	Is it too late at night?	_________

25. 	Is auditing being done not in the pc’s normal regular awake hours?	_________

26. 	Are there rings on the pc’s hands?	_________

27. 	Is the pc wearing tight shoes?	_________

28. 	Is the pc wearing tight clothes?	_________

29. 	Is it actually chronic High or Low TA case condition?	_________

30.	Has the pc gone into despair over his TA?	_________

The handling of these points is stated in the reference HCO Bs.

The handling of high or low TA after checking these points is by C/S 53RF, Short Hi-Lo TA Assessment C/S.

The way to be sure of a C/S 53RF or Hi-Lo TA list is by continued assessment and handling of these lists until an F/N on assessment is gotten.

So standard tech handles the high and low TA. The C/S Series gives more data on the subject.

	Compiled by Flag XIIs
	for
	Training & Services Bureau
LRH:BL:JW:clb.rd
Copyright ©1972, 1973	Revised by
by L. Ron Hubbard	L. RON HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	Founder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER 1973

Remimeo
Tech & Qual
All Levels
All Tech Checksheets	

DRY AND WET HANDS
MAKE FALSE TA

A couple of years ago some auditors were solving high TA problems by putting hand cream on the pc’s hands when they were calloused and talcum powder on a pc’s hands when they were too wet. Since no research had been done they were censured.

Research has now been done on this matter of dry and wet hands.

Apparently when a person has taken certain medicines or chemicals, or uses detergent soaps or is in contact with certain chemicals (such as those in some furniture polishes) the ordinary skin oils vanish. These oils are needed to make an electrical contact with the cans.

When these oils are absent, there is no adequate electrical contact and the “TA is High”.

When a person is deficient in certain minerals or vitamins such as magnesium or B complex, his hands can be excessively wet.

Either of these two conditions in hands or feet can produce an incorrect TA position.

The dry condition produces a false high TA.

The overly wet condition produces a false low TA.

The TA depends on normally moist hands. This does not mean the meter works on “sweat”. It does mean the meter works only when there is a correct electrical contact.

Too much and too greasy hand cream could produce too low a TA.

Too much powder or drier could produce too high a TA.

Therefore one must not go to extremes.

DRY HANDS

The excessively “dry” hand is seen as shiny or polished looking. It feels very dry.

The correct treatment is to use a “vanishing cream” (obtainable from any cosmetics store) not a greasy hand cream.

The “vanishing cream” is so called because it rubs all the way into the skin and leaves no excess grease.

This restores normal electrical contact.

There are many such creams. It makes no difference which is used so long as it vanishes into the skin.

It is doubtful if it would have to be applied more than once—at session start—as it lasts for a long while.

This would apply to some footplate cases as well (whose hands are defective or too heavily calloused).
If a cream leaves smears on a can, it is too heavily applied or too little absorbed.

Vanishing type cream is usually smeared on, rubbed in and can then be thoroughly wiped off. The hands (or feet) will usually produce, then, a normal TA and meter response.

WET HANDS

Anti-perspirants can be applied to too wet hands. There are many brands of these, often a powder or spray.

It can be wiped off after application and should work for two or three hours.

It can be applied to hands or feet (for footplates).

If the TA then goes too high, use vanishing cream on top of it.

SUMMARY

While much work could be done still, the above is enough for a practical result.

WARNING

Hi TAs and Lo TAs do not widely F/N. If you are getting wide persistent F/N with the TA too high (above 3) or too low (below 2) you have a pc whose hands are too dry or too wet. Using this HCO B should correct it and in future sessions you should continue the remedy on that pc.

NOTHING in this HCO B excuses the misreading or falsifying of a TA. Get the TA in normal range with this HCO B before you start calling processes ended.

C/S 53 RF and the False TA Checklist HCO B 29 Feb 1 972R, Revised 23 Nov 73, are your tools for handling too high and too low TAs.

The only other conditions I know of that make an auditor mess up a pc’s TA are:

(a) 	A discharged meter (registers high).

(b) 	An incorrectly set meter by trim button.

(c) 	A “fleeting F/N” where the pc F/Ns so briefly the auditor misses it and overruns.

(d) 	Bad TRs.

(e) 	Unflat processes.

(f) 	Overrun processes.

(g) 	Heavy drugs or medicines.

False TA often comes to light when the auditor runs out of reasons it is high or low and it dawns on him that he is dealing with false TA. In the latter case he should know all MATERIALS ON THIS SUBJECT OF FALSE TA (given on HCO B 29 Feb 1972R, Revised 23 Nov 73, as references) AND REMEDY THE FALSE TA SITUATION AND THEN RESUME NORMAL AUDITING. He must not go on calling high or low TA F/Ns just by assuming the TA is false.

Given a contact the meter always tells the truth.

	L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:clb.rd	Founder
Copyright © 1973	
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 OCTOBER 1968
Remimeo

FLOATING NEEDLE

Floating needles (F/Ns) are the end phenomena for any process or action with the pc on two cans. It is one of the most important rediscoveries made in years. It was known but lost by auditors.

It is the idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as 1” or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-Meter calibrated with the TA between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs in on the pc. It can occur after a cognition blowdown of the TA or just moves into floating. The pc may or may not voice the cognition.

It, by the nature of the E-Meter reading below the awareness of the thetan, occurs just before the pc is aware of it. So to give a “That’s it” on the occurrence of the F/N can prevent the pc from getting the cognition.

A “floating needle” occurring above 3.0 or below 2.0 on a calibrated Mark V E-Meter with the pc on 2 cans is an ARC Broken Needle. Watch for the pc’s indicators. An ARC Broken Needle can occur between 2.0 and 3.0 where bad indicators are apparent.

Pcs and pre-OTs OFTEN signal an F/N with a “POP” to the left and the needle can actually even describe a pattern much like a Rock Slam. Meters with lighter movements do “pop” to the left and R/S wildly for a moment.

One does not sit and study and be sure of an “F/N”. It swings or pops, he lets the pc cognite and then indicates the F/N to the pc preventing overrun.

When one OVERRUNS an F/N or misses one, the TA will start to climb. The thing to do is briefly rehabilitate it (rehab it) by indicating it has been by-passed and so regain it.

The F/N does not last very long in releasing. The thing to do is end the process off NOW. Don’t give another command.

It coincides with other “end phenomena” of processes but is senior to them.

An F/N can be in normal range and still be an ARC Brk Needle. The thing which determines a real F/N is Good Indicators. Bad Indicators always accompany an ARC Break Needle.

On an ARC Brk Needle, check for an ARC Brk. If the TA then climbs, it was a real F/N so you rehab it quickly.

A one hand electrode sometimes obscures an F/N and gives false TA. If used, use
higher sensitivity and get the TA from 2 cans when needed.

LRH:ja.ei.cden						L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1968						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 FEBRUARY 1966
Remimeo
All Students
All Scn Staff
Franchise
FREE NEEDLES, HOW TO
GET THEM ON A PC

Free needles can be obscured only by overruns and auditor goofs in the rehab session and ARC Breaks in past auditing.

When a TA goes up or is up it means an overrun in life or on a process or grade of release.

The only place you can’t get an overrun is at Grade VII. All grades below that are subject to overrun.

Life subjects are subject to overrun before Scientology. The mechanism is this: one conceived a purpose. He or she succeeded in it, then kept on and overran it. In auditing one hits the purpose and the overrun of it and gets a free needle on it. That doesn’t mean the person was a release then. It means that the spotting of the purpose and the overrun by auditing produces a free needle today.

It may be necessary to find whole track overruns on some pcs in rehabilitation of grades. If a lot of levels have been run past free needle it may be necessary to take apart the mess like a bundle of yarn to get the first free needle. In such a case one rehabs any grade the pc has been run on that the pc can remember. One handles this briefly until the pc is happy but not necessarily to free needle. One then finds another overrun, does the same. One goes on and on looking for moments the pc felt good about processing at one or another time. If you keep this up, suddenly you will see a free needle on the pc! Establish what grade it is free on, then quickly get the needle free on the remaining overrun grades (but not grades pc was never run on). It may be necessary to take into account a whole track overrun of a purpose or even the purpose to get release, clear or OT.

It is all very quick, deft auditing, very much on procedure using standard rehab tech—but no repetitive grind.

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

You won’t see a freeing up of a needle unless you set your sensitivity on a Mark V to a stiff needle for the pc. You can increase sensitivity or decrease it as the pc progresses but by setting the sensitivity so the needle is pretty still and stiff you will see easily a freeing up of the needle and then a free needle. Using sensitivity 128 will obscure every free needle as the needle is too loose already for the auditor to see any change.

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

Pcs are most apt to go free needle after a big cog. So don’t be so engrossed in looking at the pc during cognitions. Keep an eye on that needle. And if it goes free, don’t ask anything else. Just gently give the pc a “That’s it” and without a chop of comm, ease the pc off to “Declare?” in Qual. (Or if a field auditor, start the next grade. )

--------------
Gently, gently, smooth TRs get you free needles.
A dirty needle is always caused by auditor chops, flubs, etc. You can always trace a dirty needle right back to a TR error by the auditor. If a needle goes dirty in a rehab session, get the List 1 out right now and quickly find why. It’s always an auditor goof on the TRs or tech procedure.
--------------

Rehabs are not a substitute for processes. If a grade hasn’t been run, you can’t rehab it of course.

In rehab, never use a new process to cure an overrun. Rehab the process that was overrun, not new ruds.

And see HCO Pol Ltr 10 Feb 1966 on this subject.

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

You can get free needles on pcs. It just requires standard TRs, standard tech, standard rehab and wanting to get one and letting a pc have one.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ml.rd 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1966

Remimeo

ARC BREAK NEEDLE

The needle of a preclear with an ARC Break may be dirty, stuck or sticky, but may also give the appearance of FLOATING. This is not a Release point however, as the pc will be upset and out of comm at the same time. The auditor must observe the preclear and determine which it is.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:lb-r.cden 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 FEBRUARY 1970
Remimeo
Dn Checksheet
Class VIII
FLOATING NEEDLES AND END PHENOMENA

Now and then you will get a protest from preclears about “floating needles”.

The preclear feels there is more to be done yet the auditor says, “Your needle is floating.”

This is sometimes so bad that in Scientology Reviews one has to Prepcheck the subject of “Floating Needles”.

A lot of by-passed charge can be stirred up which ARC Breaks (upsets) the preclear.

The reason this subject of floating needles gets into trouble is that the auditor has not understood a subject called END PHENOMENA.

END PHENOMENA is defined as “those indicators m the pc and meter which show that a chain or process is ended”. It shows in Dianetics that basic on that chain and flow has been erased, and in Scientology that the pc has been released on that process being run. A new flow or a new process can be embarked upon, of course, when the END PHENOMENA of the previous process is attained.

DIANETICS

Floating needles are only ONE FOURTH OF THE END PHENOMENA in all Dianetic auditing.

Any Dianetic auditing below Power has FOUR DEFINITE REACTIONS IN THE PC WHICH SHOW THE PROCESS IS ENDED.

1. 	Floating needle.
2. 	Cognition.
3. 	Very good indicators (pc happy).
4. 	Erasure of the final picture audited.

Auditors get panicky about overrun. If you go past the End Phenomena the F/N will pack up (cease) and the TA will rise.

BUT that’s if you go past all four parts of the end phenomena, not past a floating needle.

If you watch a needle with care and say nothing but your R3R commands, as it begins to float you will find:

1. 	It starts to float narrowly.
2. 	The pc cognites (What do you know—so that’s . . .) and the float widens.
3. 	Very good indicators come in. And the float gets almost full dial, and
4. 	The picture, if you inquired, has erased and the needle goes full dial.

That is the full End Phenomena of Dianetics.

If the auditor sees a float start, as in 1, and says, “I would like to indicate to you your needle is floating,” he can upset the pc’s bank.
There is still charge. The pc has not been permitted to cognite. VGIs surely won’t appear and a piece of the picture is left.

By being impetuous and fearful of overrun, or just being in a hurry, the auditor’s premature (too soon) indication to the pc suppresses three quarters of the pc’s end phenomena.

SCIENTOLOGY

All this also applies to Scientology auditing.

And all Scientology processes below Power have the same end phenomena.

The 0 to IV Scientology End Phenomena are:

A. 	Floating needle.
B. 	Cognition.
C. 	Very good indicators.
D. 	Release.

The pc goes through these four steps without fail IF PERMITTED TO DO SO.

As Scientology auditing is more delicate than Dianetic auditing, an overrun (F/N vanished and TA rising, requiring “rehab”) can occur more rapidly. Thus the auditor has to be more alert. But this is no excuse to chop off three of the steps of end phenomena.

The same cycle of F/N will occur if the pc is given a chance. On A you get a beginning F/N, on B slightly wider, on C wider still and on D the needle really is floating and widely.

“I would like to indicate to you your needle is floating” can be a chop. Also it’s a false report if it isn’t widely floating and will keep floating.

Pcs who leave session F/N and arrive at Examiner without F/N, or who eventually do not come to session with an F/N have been misaudited. The least visible way is the F/N chop, as described in this session. The most obvious way is to overrun the process. (Running a pc after he has exteriorized will also give a high TA at Examiner.)

In Dianetics, one more pass through is often required to get 1, 2, 3, 4 End Phenomena above.

I know it said in the Auditor’s Code not to by-pass an F/N. Perhaps it should be changed to read “A real wide F/N”. Here it’s a question of how wide is an F/N? However, the problem is NOT difficult.

I follow this rule—I never jolt or interrupt a pc who is still looking inward. In other words, I don’t ever yank his attention over to the auditor. After all, it’s his case we are handling, not my actions as an auditor.

When I see an F/N begin I listen for the pc’s cognition. If it isn’t there, I give the next command due. If it still isn’t there, I give the 2nd command, etc. Then I get the cognition and shut up. The needle floats more widely, VGIs come in, the F/N goes dial wide. The real skill is involved in knowing when to say nothing more.

Then with the pc all bright, all end phenomena in sight (F/N, Cog, VGIs, Erasure or Release, depending on whether it’s Dn or Scn), I say, as though agreeing with the pc, “Your needle is floating.”

DIANETIC ODDITY
Did you know that you could go through a picture half a dozen times, the F/N getting wider and wider without the pc cogniting? This is rare but it can happen once in a hundred. The picture hasn’t been erased yet. Bits of it seem to keep popping in. Then it erases fully and wow, 2, 3 and 4 occur. This isn’t grinding. It’s waiting for the F/N to broaden to cognition.

The pc who complains about F/Ns is really stating the wrong problem. The actual problem was the auditor distracting the pc from cognition by calling attention to himself and the meter a moment too soon.

The pc who is still looking inward gets upset when his attention is jerked outward. Charge is then left in the area. A pc who has been denied his full end phenomena too often will begin to refuse auditing.

Despite all this, one still must not overrun and get the TA up. But in Dianetics an erasure leaves nothing to get the TA up with!

The Scientology auditor has a harder problem with this, as he can overrun more easily. There is a chance of pulling the bank back in. So the problem is more applicable to Scientology as a problem than to Dianetics.

But ALL auditors must realize that the END PHENOMENA of successful auditing is not just an F/N but has 3 more requisites. And an auditor can chop these off.

The mark of the real VIRTUOSO (master) in auditing is his skilled handling of the floating needle.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH.jz.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 OCTOBER 1970
Remimeo
C/Ses
All Auditors
Level 0	C/S Series 20
HGC Checksheet
PERSISTENT F/N

A FLOATING NEEDLE can persist.

This fact tells you at once why you cannot do three major actions in a row in the same ten minutes.

This was the bug behind “Quickie Grades” (0 to IV in one session. This also occurred in Power when it was run all in one day). The auditor would attain a bona fide full dial F/N. The pc was still cogniting, still in a big win. The auditor would “clear the next process command”, he would see an F/N. He would “clear the next process command”, and see an F/N.

BUT IT WAS THE SAME F/N!

Result was that processes 2 and 3 WERE NEVER RUN ON THE CASE.

This is really what is meant by “Quickie Grades”.

In 1958 we got real Releases. You could not kill the F/N for days, weeks.

Several processes had this effect. Today’s real Clear also goes this way. You couldn’t kill the F/N with an axe.

By running a lot of Level Zero processes, for instance, you can get a real swinging unkillable F/N.

It not only gets to the Examiner, it comes in at the start of the next day’s session!

Now if in one session you ran all of Level Zero and went on up to Level One, you would just be auditing a persistent F/N. The pc would get no benefit at all from Level One. He’s still going “Wow” on Level Zero.

If you ran Level Zero with one process that got a big wide floating F/N and then “ran” Level I, II, III and IV, you would have just a Level Zero Release. The pc’s bank was nowhere to be found. So next week he has problems (Level I) or a Service Fac (Level IV) and he is only a Grade Zero yet it says right there in Certs and Awards log he’s a Grade IV. So now we have a “Grade IV” who has Level I, II, III and IV troubles!

A session that tries to go beyond a big dial-wide drifting floating F/N only distracts the pc from his win. BIG WIN.

Any big win (F/N dial-wide, Cog, VGIs) gives you this kind of persistent F/N.

You at least have to let it go until tomorrow and let the pc have his win.

That is what is meant by letting the pc have his win. When you get one of these dial-wide F/Ns, Cog, VGIs WOW you may as well pack it up for the day.
GRADUAL WIDENING
In running a Dianetic chain to basic in triple you will sometimes see in one session a half dial on Flow 1, 3/4 of a dial on Flow 2, a full dial on Flow 3.

Or you may have 4 subjects to two-way comm or prepcheck in one session. First action 1/3 dial F/N. Then no F/N, TA up. Second action l/2 dial F/N. Then no F/N. Third action 3/4 dial F/N. Fourth action full dial-wide floating swinging idling F/N.

You will also notice in the same session-long time for 1st action, shorter, shorter, shorter for the next three actions.

Now you have an F/N that anything you try to clear and run will just F/N WITHOUT AFFECTING THE CASE AT ALL.

If you audit past that you are wasting your time and processes.

You have hit an “unkillable F/N”, properly called a persistent F/N. It’s persistent at least for that day. Do any more and it’s wasted.

If an auditor has never seen this he had better get his TR0 bullbait flat for 2 hours at one unflunked go and his other TRs in and drill out his flubs. For that’s what’s supposed to happen.

F/Ns on pcs audited up to (for that session) a persistent F/N always get to the Examiner.

If you only have a “small F/N” it won’t get to the Examiner. However, on some pcs maybe that’s good enough. May take him several sessions, each one getting a final session F/N a bit wider. Then he gets an F/N that gets to the Examiner. After that, well audited on a continuing basis, the F/N lasts longer and longer.

One day the pc comes into session with a dial-wide floating swinging F/N and anything you say or do does nothing whatever to disturb that F/N.

It’s a real Release man. It may last weeks, months, years.

Tell him to come back when he feels he needs some auditing and chalk up the remaining hours (if sold by the hour) as undelivered. Or if sold by result, chalk up the result.

If the F/N is truly persistent he will have no objections. If it isn’t, he will object. So have him come back tomorrow and carry on whatever you were doing.

SUMMARY

The technical bug back of Quickie Grades or Quickie Power was the Persistent F/N.

This is not to be confused with a Stage 4 (sweep, stick, sweep, stick) or an ARC Broke needle (pc Bad Indicators while F/Ning).

This is not to be used to refuse all further auditing to a pc.

It is to be used to determine when to end a series of major actions in a session.

LRH: rr.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1970 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MARCH 1974
Remimeo 
AO Auditors 
Class VIII
END PHENOMENA

(Ref: HCO B 20 Feb 1970,
“Floating Needles and End Phenomena”)

Different types of auditing call for different handlings of End Phenomena.

End Phenomena will also vary depending on what you’re running.

The definition of END PHENOMENA is “those indicators in the pc and meter which show that a chain or process is ended”. Misapplication of this definition can result in underrun and overrun processes or actions and the pc snarled up with BPC.

TYPES OF EPs

In Power Processing the auditor waits for a specific  EP and does not indicate an F/N until he has gotten the specific EP for the process. To miss on this in Power is disastrous, thus Power auditors are drilled and drilled on the handling of Power EPs.

In Dianetics, the EP of a chain is erasure, accompanied by an F/N, cognition and good indicators. You wouldn’t necessarily expect rave indicators on a pc in the middle of an assist, under emotional or physical stress until the full assist was completed though. What you would expect is the chain blown with an F/N. Those two things themselves are good indicators. The cognition could simply be “the chain blew”.

In Scientology, End Phenomena vary with what you’re auditing. An ARC Broken pc on an L-1C will peel off charge and come uptone gradually as each reading line is handled. Sometimes it comes in a spectacular huge cog and VVGIs and dial F/N, but that’s usually after charge has been taken off on a gradient. What’s expected is an F/N as that charge being handled moves off.

In Ruds it’s the same idea. When you’ve got your F/N and that charge has moved off, indicate it. Don’t push the pc on and on for some “EP”. You’ve got it.

Now a major grade process will run to F/N, Cog, VGIs and release. You’ll have an ability regained. But that’s a grade  process on a set up flying pc.

F/N ABUSE

Mistakenly applying the Power EP rule to Ruds will have the pc messed up by overrun. It invalidates the pc’s wins and keys the charge back in. The pc will start thinking he hasn’t blown the charge and can’t do anything about it.

In 1970 I had to write the HCO B “F/Ns and End Phenomena” to cure auditors of chopping pc EPs on major actions by indicating F/Ns too soon. This is one type of F/N abuse which has largely been handled.

That bulletin and Power EP handling have been in some instances misapplied in the direction of overrun. “The pc isn’t getting EP on these chains as there’s no cognition, just ‘it erased’,” is one example. Obviously the C/S didn’t understand the definition of cognition or what an EP is. Another example is the pc spots what it is and F/Ns and the auditor carries on, expecting an “EP”.

OTs and EPs

An OT is particularly subject to F/N abuse as he can blow things quite rapidly. If the auditor misses the F/N due to too high a sensitivity setting or doesn’t call it as he’s waiting for an “EP”, overrun occurs. It invalidates an OT’s ability to as-is and causes severe upsets.

This error can also stem from auditor speed. The auditor, used to auditing lower level pcs or never trained to audit OTs, can’t keep up with the OT and misses his F/Ns or reads.

Thus overruns occur and charged areas are bypassed.

This could account for those cases who were flying then fell on their heads with the same problems that blew back again.

REMEDY

The remedy of this problem begins with thoroughly clearing all terms connected with EPs. This is basically Word Clearing Method 6, Key Words.

The next action is to get my HCO Bs on the subject of EPs and also related metering HCO Bs fully understood and starrated. This would be followed by clay demos of various EPs of processes and actions showing the mechanics of the bank and what happens with the pc and meter.

TRs and meter drills on spotting F/Ns would follow, including any needed obnosis drills and correction of meter position so that the auditor could see the pc, meter and his admin at a glance.

Then, the auditor would be gradiently drilled on handling the pc, meter and admin at increasing rates of speed including recognizing and indicating EPs when they occurred. When the auditor could do all of this smoothly at the high rate of speed of an OT blowing things by inspection without fumbling, the last action would be bullbaited drills like TRs 103 and 104, on a gradient to a level of competence whereby the auditor could handle anything that came up at speed and do so smoothly.

Then you’d really have an OT auditor. And that’s what you’ll have to do to make them.

SUMMARY

Overrun and underrun alike mess up cases.

Both stem from an auditor inability to recognize and handle different types of EPs and inexpertness in handling the tools of auditing at speed.

Don’t overrun pcs and have to repair them.

Let the pc have his wins.

LRH:ams.rd    	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974   	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 MARCH 1971R
CORRECTED & REISSUED 25 JULY 1973
(Only change being word “by” in para 4 changed to “but”.)
Remimeo
All Levels
F/N EVERYTHING

Whenever an auditor gets a read on an item from Ruds or a prepared list (LIB, L3A, L4B, etc, etc) IT MUST BE CARRIED TO AN F/N.

To fail to do so is to leave the pc with by-passed charge.

When a pc has had several reads on various lists which were none of them carried to F/N, it can occur that he will become upset or depressed without any other apparent reason. As one has DONE the lists without F/Ning each item, one now has the mystery of what is wrong?

The error is reading items from Ruds or prepared lists cleaned to no read but not carried to F/N.

This action (amongst many such refinements) is what makes Flag auditing so smooth and indeed makes it Flag Auditing.

When an auditor first tries this he may well think it is impossible.

Yet it is simplicity itself. If you know bank structure you know it is necessary to find an earlier item if something does not release. What has been found as a read on a prepared list would F/N if it were the basic lock. So if it doesn’t F/N, then there is an earlier (or an earlier or an earlier) lock which is preventing it from F/Ning.

So the RULE:

NEVER WALK OFF FROM A READING ITEM ON A RUDIMENT OR A PREPARED REPAIR LIST BEFORE YOU CARRY IT DOWN (EARLIER SIMILAR) TO AN F/N.

Example: ARC Brk reads. Pc says what it is, Auditor does ARCU CDEI. If no F/N, Auditor asks for an earlier similar ARC Brk, gets it, ARCU CDEI, etc until he gets an F/N.

Example: PTP reads. Carry it E/S (earlier similar) until a PTP F/Ns.

Example: L4B: Has an item been denied you? Reads. Answered. No F/N. Is there an earlier similar denied item? Answered. F/N. Go on to next reading item on the list.

Example: GF assessed once through for reads. The next C/S must take every item on it that read, by 2wc or other process, to an F/N.

So there is a much more general rule:

EVERY ITEM THAT READS MUST F/N.

In Dianetics you get the F/N when you run E/S secondaries or engrams to an erasure, F/N, Cog, VGIs.
In Rudiments, every out rud you get a read on is run E/S to F/N.

On a prepared list you take each read to an F/N or E/S to F/N.

On an LX list you run each flow chain to an F/N.

On GF you get by whatever process an F/N.

On Listing by the Laws of Listing and Nulling, your eventual item listed must F/N.

So another rule:

EVERY MAJOR AND MINOR ACTION MUST BE CARRIED TO AN F/N.

There are NO exceptions.

Any exception leaves by-passed charge on the pc.

Also, every F/N is indicated at the conclusion of the action when cog is obtained.

You take too soon an F/N (first twitch) you cut the cognition and leave by-passed charge (a withheld cognition).

I could take any folder and simply write out the ruds and prepared list reading items and then audit the pc and carry each one to F/N and correct every list so disclosed and wind up with a very shining, cool calm pc.

So “Have reading items been left charged?” would be a key question on a case.

Using lists or ruds on high or low TAs that are not meant for high or low TAs will get you reading items that won’t F/N.

So, another rule:

NEVER TRY TO FLY RUDS OR DO L1B ON A HIGH OR LOW TA.

One can talk the TA down (see HCO B on Talking the TA Down).

Or one can assess L4B.

About the only prepared lists one can assess are the new Hi-Lo TA HCO B 13 Mar 71 and possibly a GF+40 once through for biggest read. The biggest read will have a blowdown on it and can possibly be brought to F/N. If this occurs then one also handles all other items that read.

The most frequent errors in all this are:

Not taking a read earlier similar but just checking it and leaving it as “clean”.

Not using suppress and false on items.

And of course leaving a pc thinking things are still charged by failing to indicate the F/N.

Indicating an F/N before Cog.

Not going back through the folder to handle ruds and items that read but were called “clean” or were simply abandoned.
A pc audited under tension of poor TRs has a hard time and does not F/N sometimes, inviting overrun.

The rules then to happy pcs are:

GOOD TRs.

F/N EVERYTHING FOUND ON RUDS AND LISTS.

AUDIT WITH TA IN NORMAL RANGE OR REPAIR IT SO IT IS IN NORMAL RANGE.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder
LRH:mes.nt.rd	
Copyright © 1971, 1973	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 OCTOBER 1968

Remimeo

METER POSITION

YOU MUST NEVER NEVER NEVER HAVE YOUR METER IN A POSITION WHERE THE PRECLEAR CAN READ THE TA.

To do so can cause the pc worry about his TA position and take his attention off his case.

It violates Clause 17 of the Auditor’s Code.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH :jp.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N          

Remimeo                                            14 JANUARY 1963
All Auditors                           REISSUED  25 JULY 1974 AS BTB

CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JANUARY 1963
SAME TITLE

RINGS CAUSING “ROCK SLAMS”

	NOTE: This datum was already known to me about rings but this is the most severe case I’ve heard of. 
L. RON HUBBARD

	The following dispatch, sent in by Terry Milner and Joe Fortner, staff members of Los Angeles, describes a phenomenon which can be caused by a PC wearing rings: 

	“A dispatch on a matter which I consider quite urgent. Since being audited quite a few rock slams have been observed on me. In the rudimentss, on lists, between comm lags, button checks, in fact any method of auditing which required the use of an E-Meter. With the advent of R2-12 I had many lists, all chock full of items that had rock slammed at one time or another. The supposedly phantom rock slam served to hang up many sessions and auditing became quite a drag even though one true package was found in spite of the rock slams that went on forever. 

	Recently I was sent to get HGC auditing and the rock slams were ever present until my Auditor, Joe Fortner, got a little suspicious and had me take off the two rings I wore, one on either hand. 

	They disappeared. Hundreds of things that had rock slammed no longer rock slammed. Hundreds of almost, not quite reliable items are dead now and in all truth, most them have no meaning to me anyway. 

	Perhaps you know of this condition set up by the PC wearing rings.......the thing is most audititors do not, nor do most PCs.

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1963, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 MARCH 1974
Remimeo

E-METERS
SENSITIVITY ERRORS

An auditor must set the Sensitivity of an E-Meter exactly right for each  pc.

The setting is different for almost every pc.

TOO LOW

Too low a Sensitivity on some pcs (like Sens 5-32) will obscure reads and make them look like ticks. It will obscure an F/N. Whereas a Sens 16-128 will show reads and F/Ns.

A pc can be hindered by the auditor not setting the Sensitivity high enough to show reads and F/Ns. Items are missed as well as F/Ns.

TOO HIGH

When auditing a flying pc or a Clear or OT the auditor who sets the Sensitivity too high gets weird impressions of the case.

“Latent reads” on such a case are common. They aren’t latent at all. What happens is that the F/N is more than a dial wide at high Sensitivity and a started F/N looks like a read as its sweep is stopped by the pin on the right of the dial.

In this way uncharged items are taken up, the case is slowed, overrun and general upsets requiring repairs occur.

On one hand electrode an OT VII sometimes has a 3h dial wide F/N at Sens 5-32.

This would mean a 3/4 dial F/N at Sens 2-32 with two cans.

A Clear sometimes has a floating TA at Sens 32-32 instead of an F/N. He would have to be run at Sens 3-32 two cans to keep him on a dial or detect F/Ns.

This is a very important matter as the auditor will miss F/Ns, think beginning F/Ns are reads and as the Pre-OT is off the dial, miss reads.

Thus uncharged areas are run and charged ones are missed.

The result is very chaotic to repair.

Some lower level pcs also have a need for lower Sensitivity settings.

SUMMARY

Sometimes an easy pc looks very difficult just because of wrong Sensitivity settings.
Set the Sensitivity for the pc for a half dial F/N maximum or minimum.

Don’t get repairs.

Get wins.

LRH:ntm.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

16 JUNE 1971 R
Remimeo                                                      ISSUE I
Cramming                                       REVISED 30 MAY 1973
REISSUED 22 JULY 1974 AS BTB

CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 16 JUNE 1971R
ISSUE II
SAME TITLE

ADVANCED E- METER DRILLS

CROOOO-3

NAME: 	    	CONFRONT THE E- METER. 

PURPOSE:      	To train an Auditor to confront an E-Meter. 

POSITION:     	Student with E-Meter on a table in front of him. 

COMMANDS:  	None. 

TRAINING STRESS:

	If a student has difficulty doing the preceding E-Meter drills, this drill is done. It is a gradient step towards greater session control! 

	The student confronts the E-Meter and does nothing else for two hours. The Supervisor keeps a close eye on the student and sees that he does the drill continuously for two hours. If the student has difficulty, the Supervisor should get him to clear up misunderstoods on the E-Meter and then return him to the drill. 

	The drill is completed when the student has completed at least two hours of the drill, and is doing it comfortably. 

HISTORY: 	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1971 at Flag to provide a gradient for more difficult E-Meter Drills. 

CROOOO-4

NAME:	SEE THE SESSION.

PURPOSE:	To train an Auditor to be able to see the PC, the PC’s hands on the cans,                           		the Meter plus any reads, and the worksheets without having to look at any one     		of them.

POSITION:	Coach and Auditor on opposite sides of the table. Table set up for a                     		standard session. 

COMMANDS:TRs 1 to 4 with admin (as per HCOB 16 August 71Training drills Modernised).

TRAINING STRESS: 

	The Auditor is trained to widen his/her field of vision until the Auditor can see the Meter, the PC, the PC’s hands on the cans, and the worksheets effortlessly. The student is flunked for any weakness in earlier TRs, and returned to do them if needed. The student is flunked for a non- standard or peculiar setting up of the equipment for a session which may make it impossible to see the Meter, the PC and the worksheets simultaneously. If the student is having difficulty, the coach should handle the Auditor on a gradient, ie see the Meter and the PC perfectly, then the Meter and the worksheets and so bring the Auditor up to doing the drill. The drill is passed when the Auditor can do the drill effortlessly. 

HISTORY: 	Developed in 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard to help Auditors to gain smoother session co-ordination and control. 

CROOOO-5 

NAME:	E- METER TRIM CHECK.

PURPOSE: 	To train an Auditor to be able to do a trim check effortlessly in a session                        		without distracting the PC in any way. 

POSITION: 	Coach and Auditor on opposite sides of the table. Table set up for a standard           		session. 

COMMANDS:TRs 1 to 4 patter. 

TRAINING STRESS:

	The Auditor is trained to do the steps of a trim check while doing TRs 1 to 4 with admin until he can do a trim check smoothly and efficiently, without the coach seeing any movement or hearing any clicks or noises. The Auditor is flunked for any hesitation, confusion, observable movements or attention going onto the plug or trim knob. The drill is ended when the Auditor can do the drill silently and efficiently with his hands whilst doing TRs 1 to 4 with admin. 

	During any and all E-Meter Drills a copy of “E-Meter Essentials” by L. Ron Hubbard should be handy. Misunderstoods are
cleared up with the use of this handbook, and an extensive use of Word Clearing technology is made. 

	These drills and any other Meter drills also need a copy of “E-Meter Drills” to be on the table, and confusions on the drill can often be traced back through this book. 

	The old rule that only constant reference to Source maintains 100% results is to be adhered to on these drills just as much. Verbal Q&A between coach and student is OUT. 

HISTORY: 	Developed in 1971 by L.Ron Hubbard to help Auditors to handle a trim check in session flawlessly. 

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide
Approved by
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 MAY 1969
Remimeo	
Exec Secs
Tech Sec	(Tech Div) (Qual Div)
All Tech Hats	(Replaces HCO B of 27 July 1966, same name)
All Qual Hats
Dianetic Course
METER TRIM CHECK

E-Meters can go out of trim during a session because of temperature changes.

Thus even if the meter is properly calibrated and reads at 2.0 with a 5,000 ohm resistor across the leads and 3.0 with 12,500 ohms, by the end of the session a pc can be apparently reading below 2.0 because the meter is off trim.

The following meter procedure is therefore to be followed AT THE END OF EACH SESSION (AFTER GIVING “THAT’S IT”):

1. 	DON’T MOVE THE TRIM KNOB

2. 	PULL OUT THE JACK PLUG

3. 	MOVE THE TA UNTIL THE NEEDLE IS ON “SET” AT THE SENSITIVITY YOU WERE USING IN THE SESSION

4. 	RECORD THE TA POSITION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE AUDITOR’S REPORT FORM AS: “Trim Check—TA = . . .”

5. 	IF YOUR METER IS KNOWN TO BE OUT OF CALIBRATION (as in Para 2 above) RECORD ALSO: “Calibration error— on meter = 2.0 actual” at the bottom of the form.

LRH:lb-r.cs.an.ei.rd						L. RON HUBBARD
copyright © 1969						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971

Remimeo	Issue IX
Auditors
Supervisors
Students	Basic Auditing Series 11
Tech and Qual Staff
Checksheets of all courses
teaching metering

METERING

One does NOT tell the pc anything about the meter or its reads ever, except to indicate an F/N.

Steering a pc with “That—That—That” on something reading is allowable. But that isn’t putting attention on the meter but on his bank.

Definition of “In Session” is “Pc interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor”.

Saying “That reads”, “That didn’t read”, “That blew down” is illegal. It is no substitute for TR 2. It violates the In Session definition by putting pc’s attention on the meter and can make him very unwilling to talk to the auditor!

LRH:act.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1965
Remimeo
Academy	Tech Division
Students

E-METER DRILL COACHING

The following was submitted by Malcolm Cheminais, Supervisor on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

Here are some observations I have made on the coaching of E-Meter drills, which I feel could be of use:

1. 	The coach’s needle is dirty. The student’s out comm cycle has cut his comm in some way, but PRIOR to that the coach failed to flunk the part of the comm cycle that went out. Correct flunking by coaches equals students with no dirty needles.

2. 	If a coach’s TA starts climbing on a drill and the needle gets sticky, it means that the student’s comm cycle has dispersed him and pushed him out of PT. The coach is either ( 1 ) not flunking at all (2) flunking the incorrect thing.

3. 	The correct flunking by the coach of an out comm cycle, which has dispersed him and pushed his TA up, will always result in a TA blowdown. If there is no blowdown, the coach has flunked the wrong thing.

4. 	Needle not responding well and sensitively on assessment drills, although the needle clean. Coach has failed to flunk TR 1 (or TR0) for lack of impingement and reach.

5. 	Coach reaching forward and leaning on the table, means TR 1 is out with the student.

6. 	Student asking coach for considerations to get TA down, but TA climbing on the considerations—the coach is cleaning a clean, instead of flunking the out comm cycle, which occurred earlier and pushed his TA up.

7. 	Student getting coach’s considerations off to clean the needle, but needle remaining dirty—student is cutting the coach’s comm while getting the considerations off and the coach is not picking this up.

8. 	Students shouting or talking very loudly on assessment drills to try and get the Meter to read by overwhelm. The reason for this is invariably—”but I’m assessing the bank!” They haven’t realized that banks don’t read, only thetans impinged upon by the bank—therefore the TR1 must be addressed to the thetan. The meter responds proportionately to the amount of ARC in the Session.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1964
CenOCon
ALL LEVELS

Q AND A

A great number of auditors Q and A.

This is because they have not understood what it is.

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

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

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

The new definition is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfinished cycles of action are all that louse up cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 AUGUST 1965

Remimeo 
All Students 
All Staff
AUDITING GOOFS
BLOWDOWN INTERRUPTION

It is a serious goof for the auditor to speak or move during a blowdown of the Tone Arm.

When a Tone Arm has to be moved rapidly down, the needle appears to float to some but it is just falling.

To see if a needle is floating the TA must have stopped moving down.

A Blowdown is a period of relief and cognition to a pc while it is occurring and for a moment after it stops.

Therefore it is a serious goof for an auditor to speak or move during the blowdown or for a moment afterwards.

This was noted years ago and is given in early materials on goals.

AN AUDITOR MUST NOT SPEAK OR MOVE DURING A BLOWDOWN.

When the auditor has to move the TA from right to left to keep the needle on the dial and the movement is .I divisions or more then a blowdown is occurring. The needle of course is falling to the right.

That is a period of charge blowing off the bank. It is accompanied by realizations for the pc. Sometimes the pc does not voice them aloud. They nevertheless happen.

If the auditor speaks or moves beyond adjusting the TA quietly with his thumb the pc may suppress the cognitions and stop the blowdown.

To see if a needle floats the TA must be halted for the moment between 2 and 3 on a calibrated meter. A floating needle cannot be observed during a blowdown.

For an auditor to sit up suddenly and look surprised or pleased, or for an auditor to say the next command or “That’s It” during a blowdown, can jolly well wreck a pc’s case. So it’s a real goof to do so.

To get auditing results one must audit with a good comm cycle, accept the pc’s answers, handle the pc’s originations, be unobtrusive with his auditing actions, not hold the pc up while he writes, not develop tricks like waiting for the pc to look at him before giving the next command, not prematurely ack and so start compulsive Itsa, and be very quiet during and just after a blowdown.

LRH:ml.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1965 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 FEBRUARY 1966
Issue II
Remimeo
Franchise
LEVEL 0

“LETTING THE PC ITSA”
THE PROPERLY TRAINED AUDITOR

The most painful thing I ever hope to see is an auditor “letting a pc Itsa”.

I have seen auditors let a pc talk and talk and talk and talk and run down and talk and run down and talk again until one wondered where if anywhere that auditor had been trained.

In the first place such an auditor could not know the meaning of the word ITSA.

The word means “It is a ........”

Now how an auditor letting a pc talk believes he is getting a pc to spot what IT is is quite beyond me.

This pc has been talking all his life. He isn’t well. Analysts had people talk for five years and they seldom got well.

So how is it supposed to happen today that a pc, let talk enough, will get well.

It won’t.

The auditor does not know the very basics of auditing skills. That’s all. These are the TRs.

An auditor who can’t do his TRs can’t audit. Period.

Instead he says he is “letting the pc Itsa”.

If by this he means he is letting the pc drive all over the road and in both ditches, then this isn’t auditing.

In auditing an auditor guides. He gives the pc something to answer. When the pc answers the pc has said “IT IS A ......” and that’s Itsa.

If the pc answers and the auditor acknowledges too soon the pc tends to go into an anxiety—he has been chopped. So he talks more than he wanted.

If the pc answers and the auditor does not acknowledge, then the pc talks on and on, hoping for an acknowledgement that doesn’t come, “runs dry”, tries again, etc.

So premature or late-or-never acks result in the same thing—the pc running on and on and on.

And they call it “letting the pc Itsa”. Bah! If a pc talks too much in session he either is getting cut off too fast by the auditor or hasn’t got an auditor at all. It isn’t “Itsa”. It’s lousy TRs. (The one single exception is the pc who had years in analysis but even he begins to get better with proper TRs used on him.)

The proper cure is to drill the auditor until the auditor realizes:

1. 	The auditor  asks the questions.

2. 	The pc says what is the answer, “It’s a .......”

3. 	The auditor acks when the pc has said it to the pc’s satisfaction and

4. 	The auditor acks when the pc has finished saying “It’s a .......”

And that’s Itsa.

Scientology auditing is a precision skill, not a gag blop goo slup guck blah.

1. 	The auditor wants to know ........

2. 	The pc says it is ........

1.2.1.2.1.2. etc.

TECH SAVVY

Now an auditor who doesn’t know his technology about the mind and his processes of course never knows what to ask. So he or she simply sits like a lump of sacking hoping the pc will say something that makes the pc feel better.

A sure sign that an auditor doesn’t know an engram from a cow about processes is seeing a pc “Itsa” on and on and on.

In Scientology we do know what the mind is, what a being is, what goes wrong in the mind and how to correct it.

We aren’t psychoanalysts or psychiatrists or Harley Street witch doctors. We do know

The data about beings and life is there in Scientology to be learned.

It isn’t “our idea” of how things are, or “our opinion of” ....

Scientology is a precision subject. It has axioms. Like geometry. Two equilateral triangles aren’t similar because Euclid said so. They’re similar because they are. If you don’t believe it, look at them.

There isn’t a single datum in Scientology that can’t be proven as precisely as teacups are teacups and not saucepans.

Now if we get a person fresh out of the study of “the mystical metaphysics of Cuffbah” he’s going to have trouble. His pcs are going to “Itsa” their heads off and never get well or better or anything. Because that person doesn’t know Scientology but thinks it’s all imprecise opinion.

The news about Scientology is that it put the study of the mind into the precise exact sciences. If one doesn’t know that, one’s pcs “Itsa” by the hour for one doesn’t know what he is handling that he is calling “a pc”.

By my definition, an auditor is a real auditor when his or her pcs DON’T overtalk or undertalk but answer the auditing question and happily now and then originate.

So how to tell an auditor, how to determine if you have trained one at last, is DO HIS PCS ANSWER UP OR DO THEY TALK ON AND ON.

If I had an auditor in an HGC whose pcs yapped and yapped and ran dry and yapped while the auditor just sat there like a Chinese pilot frozen on the controls, I would do the following to that “auditor”:

1. 	Remedy A, Book of Case Remedies.

2. 	Remedy B, Book of Case Remedies.

3. 	Disagreements with Scientology, technology and orgs and Scientology personalities all found and traced to basic and blown.

4. 	A grind study assignment of the Scientology Axioms until the “auditor” could DO THEM IN CLAY.

5. 	A memorization of the Logics, Qs (Prelogics) and Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology.

6. 	TRs 0 to 4 until they ran out of his or her ears.

7. 	TRs 5 to 9.

8. 	Op Pro by Dup until FLAT.

9. 	A hard long study of the Meter.

10. 	The ARC triangle and other scales.

11. 	The Processes of Level 0.

12. 	Some wins.

And I’d have an auditor. I’d have one that could make a Grade Zero Release every  time.

And it’s lack of the above that causes an “auditor” to say “I let the pc Itsa” with the pc talking on and on and on.

Scientology is the breakthrough that made the indefinite subject of Philosophy into a precision tool.

And pcs get well and go Release when it is applied.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: ml.rd 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1969
Issue IV

Dianetic Course
(HCO BULLETIN 21 SEPT 1965 EDITED
FOR USE ON THE DIANETIC COURSE)

THE FIVE GAEs

The five Gross Auditing Errors (GAEs) are:

1. 	Can’t handle and read an E-Meter.

2. 	Doesn’t know and can’t apply Technical data.

3. 	Can’t get and keep a pc in session.

4. 	Can’t complete an auditing cycle.

5. 	Can’t complete a repetitive auditing cycle.

These are the only errors one looks for in straightening up the auditing of an Auditor.

If you look for other reasons, this is itself a gross goof. There are no others.

LRH:cs.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright o1969						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MAY 1969
Remimeo
Dn Checksheets

TRS AND DIRTY NEEDLES

When a student’s pc develops a dirty needle (dn) it is caused by one of three things.

1. 	The student’s TRs are bad.

2. 	The student is breaking the Auditor’s Code.

3. 	The pc has withholds (w/hs) he does not wish known.

The remedy for TRs is to have the student do them in clay, showing the lines and actions of each TR. And to do more TRs with a fellow student.

The remedy for Code Breaks is to have the student define and do Invalidation and Evaluation in clay. And to list examples of possible upsets caused by each line of the Code.

The remedy for the pc with withholds is to send to a Scientology Review Auditor as Scientology can handle outnesses which occur in Dianetic sessions.

It is a safe rule in any event when a “dirty needle” occurs to send the preclear to a Scientology Review Auditor.

It is also a safe rule to assume that the student whose pcs get dirty needles is deficient on TRs and the Auditor’s Code.

LRH:an.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
copyright © 1969						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

Remimeo
Tech Sec                                                   4 JULY 1969
Qual Sec                                 REISSUED 6 JULY 1974 AS BTB
Dianetics
Course                               

AUDITING OF OT III PRECLEARS

	PRECLEARS WHO HAVE STUDIED OR RUN THE OT III MATERIALS MAY ONLY BE AUDITED BY AUDITORS WHO ARE OT III OR ABOVE. 

	This applies to Dianetics and Scientology auditing. 

	You can wreck a non- OT III Dianetic Auditor by assigning him or her to a PC who has run the OT III materials. SO DON’T DO IT. 

	Any auditor who is not OT III who is assigned to a PC who has studied or audited OT III must refuse to audit that PC. 

	This rule is invariable. Don’t violate it . 

	ONLY AUDITORS WHO ARE OT III OR ABOVE MAY AUDIT PRECLEARS WHO HAVE STUDIED OR RUN THE OT III MATERIALS. 

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N
11 JULY 1969 R

ISSUE II
REVISED & REISSUED 28 JUNE 1974 AS BTB
Remimeo              	(REVISION IN ITALICS)
DN Course
Class VIII      	CANCELS
Academies    	HCO BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1969
All Auditors      	ISSUE II
SAME TITLE

FLAGRANT AUDITING ERRORS

	The following auditing errors were discovered by asking the PC what was done in their sessions after the sessions had mysteriously  failed without any reason apparent in the Auditor Report sheets. Each one of these is a flagrant departure from standard auditing and is adequate to stop all PC gain for the session and to leave the PC stuck down the track and heavily keyed in. 

	These are just given as samples of outnesses to show what you will find by asking the PC and to show what can cause a Dianetic session to have a poor result. These instances and others actually occurred in sessions and the sessions failed. There was no mention of them in the report form, Summary or Worksheets and only asking the PC brought them to light.”
 L.R.H 

1. 	Auditor not remembering  one or more of the commands. 

2. 	Auditor delaying the PC while thinking of the next command. 

3. 	Auditor failure to give the next command. 

4. 	Giving wrong or altered commands. 

5. 	Incorrect procedure. 

6. 	Invalidating the PC’s cognitions. 

7. 	Not recognizing that the PC has gone through the incident and just waiting or saying “OK continue” when the PC had said that was all. 

8. 	Auditor during session looking up something he (the Auditor) didn’t understand that the           PC said. 

9. 	Auditing PC in circumstances where the PC is expecting he may be disturbed at some time later in the session. 

10.	Auditor walking out of auditing room leaving PC folder in room with PC. 

11. 	Continuing to audit on a chain that the PC insists is erased usually because Auditor missed the F/N.

12. 	Not acknowledging PC originations. 

13. 	Telling PC to close eyes when PC already has eyes closed. 

14. 	Keeping PC waiting after PC has carried out command. 

15. 	Telling PC to wipe her hands on her dress during session (Auditor attempt to change TA          position by session additive ) . 

16. 	Auditor running out of ink and having to borrow a pen from the PC during session. 
17. 	Forcing PC to continue looking for earlier incidents when the PC can’t find any. 

18. 	Auditor talking too quietly for PC to hear (out TR 1). 

19. 	Auditor ignoring PC originations (out TR 4). 

20. 	Continuing to ‘audit’ when Auditor doesn’t know what should be done next. 

21. 	Auditor staring at meter for long time looking for F/N (can turn off a real F/N and bring on an ARC break needle) . 

22 . 	Auditing with a contemptuous, synthetic, too sweet , motherly, or any attitude that is a          departure from a pleasant business-like attitude. 

23. 	Auditor talking to PC about Auditor’s own case in session. 

24. 	Auditor discussing other PCs with current PC in session. 

25. 	Bullbaiting PC when doing C/S 1. 

26. 	Auditor and/or PC smoking or chewing during session. 

27. 	Auditor doing or saying anything during session other than assessment and exact R3R       procedure. 

28. 	Auditor talking to PC after session about something the PC ran during the session. 

29. 	Auditing with a discharged meter. 

30. 	Auditing with legs up on table or some other improper posture. 

31. 	Auditor commenting on the PC’s cognitions. 

32. 	Auditor continuing to grind on the same incident when there’s an earlier one. 

33.	Auditor keeping voluminous admin during which the PC has to wait.

	These are just a few examples. There is an infinity of wrongnesses possible. Every session additive is a departure from TR 0 - 4 and a violation of the Auditor’s Code and a gross goof. 

	“The Auditor did not do these things maliciously. He was unaware of these AS goofs and that the session didn’t come off seemed to him to be a complete mystery, the failed sessions were also a mystery to the Case Supervisor who also thought Tech had failed until he had others ask the PC what happened in that session. 

	“Needless to say, the auditors who goofed as above were extensively audited and retrained using TRs 101, 102, 103 and 104.” 

L.R.H

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1964
Remimeo	
Franchise
Sthil	
SCIENTOLOGY I to IV

 GOOD INDICATORS AT LOWER LEVELS

The following list of good indicators was compiled from my lecture tapes by John Galusha. An additional three are added at the end.

Lower Level Good Indicators.

1. 	Pc cheerful or getting more cheerful.
2. 	Pc cogniting.
3. 	Fundamental rightnesses of pcs asserting themselves.
4. 	Pc giving things to auditor briefly and accurately.
5. 	Pc finding things rapidly.
6. 	Meter reading properly.
7. 	What’s being done giving proper meter response.
8. 	What’s being found giving proper meter response.
9. 	Pc running rapidly and flattening by TA or cognitions.
10. 	Pc giving auditor information easily.
11. 	Needle cleanly swinging about.
12. 	Pc running easily and if pc encounters somatics they are discharging.
13. 	Tone Arm goes down when pc hits a cognition.
14. 	Further TA blowdown as pc continues to talk about something.
15. 	Expected meter behaviour and nothing unexpected in meter behaviour.
16. 	Pc gets warm and stays warm in auditing or gets hot and unheats while in auditing.
17. 	Pc has occasional somatics of brief duration.
18. 	Tone Arm operating in the range 2.25 to 3.5.
19. 	Good TA action on spotting things.
20. 	Meter reading well on what pc and auditor think is wrong.
21. 	Pc not much troubled with PTPs and they are easily handled when they occur.
22. 	Pc stays certain of the auditing solution.
23. 	Pc happy and satisfied with auditor regardless of what auditor is doing.
24. 	Pc not protesting auditor’s actions.
25. 	Pc looking better by reason of auditing.
26. 	Pc feeling more energetic.

27. 	Pc without pains, aches or illnesses developing during auditing. Does not mean pc shouldn’t have somatics. Means pc shouldn’t get sick.
28. 	Pc wanting more auditing.
29. 	Pc confident and getting more confident.
30. 	Pc’s Itsa free but only covers subject.
31. 	Auditor easily seeing how it was or is on pc’s case by reason of pc’s explanations.
32. 	Pc’s ability to Itsa and confront improving.
33. 	Pc’s bank getting straightened out.
34. 	Pc comfortable in the auditing environment.
35. 	Pc appearing for auditing on his own volition.
36. 	Pc on time for session and willing and ready to be audited but without anxiety about it.
37. 	Pc’s trouble in life progressively lessening.
38. 	Pc’s attention becoming freer and more under pc’s control.
39. 	Pc getting more interested in data and technology of Scientology.
40. 	Pc’s havingness in life and livingness improving.
41. 	Pc’s environment becoming more easily handled.

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

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

26 APRIL 1969
REISSUED 7 JULY 1974 AS BTB

CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 26 APRIL 1969
SAME TITLE

BAD INDICATORS

1. 	PC not wanting to be audited. 
2. 	PC protesting auditing. 
3. 	PC looking worse after auditing. 
4. 	PC not able to locate incidents easily. 
5. 	PC “not having time for auditing”. 
6. 	PC less certain. 
7. 	PC not doing well in life. 
8. 	Somatics not blowing or erasing. 
9. 	PC in Ethics trouble after auditing. 
10. 	PC protesting Auditor actions. 
11. 	PC wandering all over track. 
12. 	PC misemotional at session end. 
13. 	PC demanding unusual solutions. 
14. 	Skin tone dull. 
15. 	Eyes dull. 
16. 	PC trying to self audit in or out of session. 
17. 	PC continuing to complain of old somatics after they have been run. 
18. 	PC dependence on medical treatment not lessening. 
19. 	PC using, or continuing to use, other treatments. 
20. 	PC lethargic. 
21. 	PC not becoming more cheerful. 
22. 	PC wanting special auditing. 
23. 	No TA action on running incidents. 
24. 	PC not cogniting. 
25. 	PC dispersed. 
26. 	PC trying to explain condition to Auditor or others. 
27. 	PC bored with auditing. 
28. 	PC not available for sessions. 
29. 	PC tired. 
30. 	PC attention on Auditor.
31. 	PC not wanting to run the process or incident
32. 	PC overwhelmed. 
33. 	PC taking drugs or excessive alcohol. 
34. 	PC not sure that auditing works for him. 
35. 	PC continuing former praetices. 
36. 	PC not handling environment more easily. 
37. 	PC sick between sessions. 
38. 	PC not going on to next grade or level. 

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 APRIL 1972
Issue III
Remimeo
Student Hat
Staff Hats  	IMPORTANT

ETHICS AND STUDY TECH

	The basic WHY of the majority of cases of post non-performance of a staff member and OUT TECH in an org stems from Misunderstood words. 

	The primary point that has to be gotten in is Study Tech. 

	This is also our bridge to society. 

	Yet Study Tech is the Tech that includes misunderstood word tech. 

	Thus if Study Tech is not in, people on staffs see nothing wrong with hearing or reading orders containing words they do not understand and have no urge to look them up. Further they often feel they do know words that they in fact do not know. 

	When this situation exists it is next to impossible to get Study Tech and Word Clearing Tech in. For, the orders seeking to get in Study Tech may contain words the person does not understand. Thus he doesn’t really comply with the orders and Study Tech does not get in. Thus the ability to hear or read and understand continues to be missing. 

	Therefore these Ethics actions become part of Standard Ethics. 
 
1. 	A   PERSON    MAY    BE    SUMMONED    TO    A    COURT    OF    ETHICS    OR EXECUTIVE COURT OF ETHICS IF IT BE FOUND THAT HE HAS GONE PAST A WORD HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHEN RECEIVING, HEARING OR READING AN ORDER, HCO B, POLICY LETTER OR TAPE WHICH RESULTED IN A FAILURE TO DO DUTIES OF HIS POST WITHOUT HIS AT ONCE MAKING AN EFFECTIVE EFFORT TO CLEAR THE WORDS ON HIMSELF, WHETHER HE KNEW HE WAS MISSING THEM OR NOT AS THE SOURCE OF HIS INACTION OR DAMAGING ACTIONS. 

	The charge is NEGLECTING TO CLARIFY WORDS NOT UNDERSTOOD. 
 
2. 	A  STAFF  MEMBER  WHO  DOES  NOT USE STUDY TECH OR GET IT KNOWN WHILE STUDYING OR INSTRUCTING MAY BE SUMMONED TO A COURT OF   ETHICS OR AN EXECUTIVE COURT OF ETHICS. 

	The charge is FAILURE TO EMPLOY STUDY TECH. 

3. 	A  STUDENT  ALTER-ISING OR MISADVISING OTHERS ON THE USE OF STUDY TECH MAY BE SUMMONED BEFORE A COURT OF ETHICS. 

	The  charge  is  ADVOCATING  A  MISUSE  OR  NEGLECT  OF PROPER STUDY TECH. 

4.	AN AUDITOR FAILING TO CLEAR EACH AND EVERY WORD OF EVERY COMMAND OR LIST USED MAY BE SUMMONED BEFORE A COURT OF ETHICS. 
	The charge is OUT TECH. 

5. 	ANY  PUBLIC  DIVISION  PERSON,  STAFF  MEMBER  OR SCIENTOLOGIST   FOUND USING TERMS, CIRCUMSTANCES OR DATA ON RAW PUBLIC IN PUBLIC LECTURES OR PROMOTION OR IN PR BEYOND THE PUBLIC ABILITY TO GRASP WITHOUT STRESSING STUDY TECH OR AT ONCE TAKING EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO CLARIFY OR RELEASING MATERIALS BROADLY TO A WRONG PUBLIC MAY BE SUMMONED TO A COURT OF ETHICS IF ANY FLAP OR UPSET RESULTS. 

	The charge is FAILURE TO APPLY STUDY TECH IN DISSEMINATION.

SUPPRESSIVE

	Furthermore, as Study Tech is our primary bridge to Society and the basic prevention of out Tech and out Admin, if any offence as above found guilty in a Court of Ethics is REPEATED and the person has had no such Courts on this offence the person may be summoned before a Committee of Evidence on a charge of COMMITTING AN ACT OR OMISSION UNDERTAKEN TO KNOWINGLY SUPPRESS, REDUCE OR IMPEDE SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt may be declared a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON and expelled with full penalties. 

AXIOM 28

	Failures to teach, or use Study Tech or alterations of Study Tech are actually offences against AXIOM 28 as it is applied internally in an org on Admin and Tech and from the org to society. 

	Study Tech including its technology of word cleaning is in fact the technology of Axiom 28. 

The Axiom (amended) follows: 

AXIOM 28. COMMUNICATION  IS  THE  CONSIDERATION  AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT ACROSS A  DISTANCE TO RECEIPT-POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO  BEING AT THE RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION AND UNDER- STANDING OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE-POINT. 

	The formula of Communication is Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention, Attention and UNDERSTANDING. 

	The component parts of Communication are Consideration, Intention, Attention, Cause, Source-point, Distance, Effect, Receipt-point, Duplication, Understanding, the Velocity of the impulse or particle, Nothingness or Somethingness. A non-communication consists of Barriers. Barriers consist of Space, Interpositions (such as walls and screens of fast-moving particles), and Time. A communication by definition, does not need to be two-way. When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated, with the receipt-point now becoming a source-point and the former source-point now becoming a receipt point. 

LRH:jk	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 NOVEMBER 1965

Remimeo

CLEARING COMMANDS

Always have a dictionary in the auditing room with you. When running a process newly or whenever the preclear is confused about the meaning of the commands, clear the commands with the preclear, using the dictionary, if necessary.

It could take a long time to clear the command. The worse off the pc, the longer it takes.

Example:

Auditor is going to run 0-0 on the pc. Auditor reads the commands one at a time to the pc and asks the pc “What does this command mean to you?” From the pc’s answer the auditor realizes that the pc has a confusion on the words “willing” and “talk”. He tells the pc to look them up in a dictionary. The pc now understands “talk”, but still seems slightly puzzled about “willing”. Now the auditor could tell the pc to use the word “willing” in a few sentences. When the pc understands it, the auditor again gets the pc to tell him what the whole command means to him.

If necessary, the auditor could get the pc to define each word of the command to be used.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE AUDITOR TO EVALUATE FOR THE PC AND TELL HIM WHAT THE WORD OR COMMAND MEANS.

The worst fault is the pc using a new set of words in place of the actual word and answering the alter-ised word, not the word itself, (see HCOB 10 March 1965, “Words, Misunderstood Goofs”).

LRH:ml.cden							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1965						
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

2 MAY 1972 R
REVISED & REISSUED 10 JUNE 1974 AS BTB
Remimeo 
All auditors
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1972
SAME TITLE

CLEARING COMMANDS

(Amends HCO B 14 Nov 65 “Clearing Commands” and
HCO B 9 Nov 68 “Clearing Commands All Levels”)

Ref:   HCO PL 4 April 1972, Revised 7 April 72 “Ethics and
	Study Tech”. 

The rules of clearing commands are: 

1. 	Always have a good dictionary in the auditing room. Have a copy of the Scientology Dictionary and any other materials necessary to define Scientology terms.

	If the PC’s native language is not English, have a dual dictionary for that language and English. A simple grammar book may also be required. For a foreign language case one should also have a dictionary of the foreign language itself. 

	Eg. English “apple” -  looks in English/French, finas “pomme” - looks in French dictionary to define “pomme”. So for the foreign language case 2 dictionaries are needed - (1) English - to foreign language, (2) foreign language itself.

2. 	Clear the commands (or questions or list items) by first clearing in turn each word in backwards sequence of the words in the command. (Eg. if command is “Do fish swim?” clear “swim” then “fish” then “do”). This prevents the PC starting to run the process by himself while you are still clearing the words. 

3. 	What a word reads when clearing an assessment or listing question does not mean that the question has read. Misunderstood words read on the meter. 

4. 	F/Ns obtained on clearing the,words does not mean the process has been run. 

5. 	Next, clear the command itself. Auditor asks the PCs “What does this command mean to you?” LRH. If it is evident from the PC’s answer that he has misunderstood a word as it is used in the context of the commands. 

	a. reclear the obvious word (or words) with the dictionary. 

	b. have him use each word in a sentence until he has it. (Clear all definitions of a                 	misunderstood word.) 

	c. reclear the command. 

	d. If necessary, repeat steps 2 & 3 to make sure he understands the command. 

	e. “Under no circumstances is the auditor to evaluate for the PC and tell him what the                 	word or command means.” LRH
6. 	You clear the first command (or bracket) that you are going to run, then run it. Then clear the second command (or bracket) and run it etc. Don’t clear more than one command (or bracket) at a time. 

7. 	When,clearing the command, watch the meter and note any 	read on the command (per HCO B 28 Feb ‘71 C/S Series 24 “Metering Reading Items”) 

8. 	Have the PC on the cans throughout the clearing of the words and commands - except when the PC is doing demos as needed. The Auditor holds the dictionary ,for the PC. 

9. 	As it is difficult to clear all the words of a correction list on a PC over heavy by-passed charge, it is standard to clear the words of an L1C and Ruds -  very early in auditing and to clear an L4BRA before commencing listing processes or an L3RF before running R3R. When the need for those correction lists arises one does not then need to clear all the words as it has already been done, thus such corrective lists can be used when needed without delay. 

	“ARC breaks and lists should be word cleared before a PC gets into them and should be tagged in a folder, on, a yellow sheet as cleared.” LRH

	It is also standard to clear the words of the Word Clearing correction list early in auditing and before other correction lists are cleared. This way, if the PC bogs on subsequent word clearing, you have your Word Clearing Correction list ready to use.

10. 	However, if, for example, your PC is sitting in the middle of an ARC Break (or other heavy charge) and the words of the L1C (or other correction list) have not been cleared yet, you go ahead and assess the list to handle the charge. “Don’t clear first. Just verify by asking afterwards if he had any misunderstoods on the list...(otherwise it’s auditing after an ARC Break).” LRH 

	All the words of the L1C (or other correction list) would then be cleared thoroughly at the first opportunity - per your C/S’s instruction. 

11. 	Do not re-clear all the words of assessment lists each time the list is used on the same PC. Do it once, fully and properly the first time and note clearly in the folder, on a yellow sheet for future reference, which of the standard assessment lists have been cleared. 

12. 	These rules apply to all processes, listing questions and assessments.

13. 	The words of the platens of Advanced Course materials are not so cleared. 

	Any violation of full and correct clearing of commands or assessment questions, whether done in a formal session or not, is an ethics offence per HCO PL 4 April 1972 (revised 7 April 72) “Ethics and Study Tech” section 4, which states: 

“ANY AUDITOR FAILING TO CLEAR EACH AND EVERY WORD OF EVERY COMMAND OR LIST USED MAY BE SUMMONED BEFORE A COURT OF ETHICS. 

The charge is OUT-TECH.” LRH
Training & Services Aide
Approved by
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

18 November 1968R
Remimeo                        REVISED & REISSUED 9 JUNE 1974 AS BTB
All Auditors
CANCELS

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 NOVEMBER 1968
SAME TITLE

MODEL SESSION

(Note: If a Dianetic - Level II Auditor is not trained in flying Rudiments, he would have to get a Level III (or above) Auditor to fly the PC’s Ruds before starting the Major action of the session.) 

	The first thing the Auditor does is to make sure the room and session are set up. This means, in other words, that the room is as comfortable as possible and free from interruptions and distractions, that the Auditor’s meter is set up and that the auditor’s report form and work sheets are ready, that any correction lists, forms, or references that might be needed are at hand. 

	The PC is seated in the chair further from the door and is asked to pick up the cans (from now until the session ends the PC stays on the cans). 

	The Auditor says: “This is the session”. (Tone 40). 

	If the needle is floating and the PC has VGIs, the Auditor goes directly into the major action of the session. If not, the Auditor must fly a Rud. 

	The first Rudiment question is: 
	“Do you have an ARC Break?” 

	“If there is an ARC Break you get it, use ARCU and CDEINR, indicate, then if no F/N you follow it earlier, get ARCU CDEINR, indicate, if no F/N you get an earlier one on and on, always with ARCU CDINR until you get an F/N.” LRH 

	The second Rudiment question is: 
	“Do you have a Present Time Problem?” 

	“If you get a PTP you follow it earlier earlier earlier until you get an F/N. “ LRH 

	The third Rudiment question is: 
	“Has a Withold been missed?” 
     
	“If you get a withold you find out WHO missed it  and what he/she did to make the PC think he/she knew - or nearly found out, then another and another using suppress.”

	If protest you put in False. You will find these W/Hs also
go earlier like any other chain but they don’t have to.” LRH

	On any Rud “If it didn’t read you check suppress. 

	If it read but is in any way protested you clean False” LRH

FALSE

	“Has anyone said you had a . . . . . when you didn’t have one?” is the answer to protested Ruds. 

	If he can’t get a Rud to fly, the Dianetic - Class III Auditor ends session and sends the PC folder to the C/S . Class III Auditors and above may do a Green Form. 

	When the PC has F/N, VGI’s you can go into the major action of the session. 

	The Auditor says: “Now we are going to handle . . . . “

	The Auditor clears the commands per BTB 2 May 1972 “Clearing Commands” . 

	After completing C/S Instructions to EP, or when EP occurs on the major action, the Dianetic auditor allows the PC to finish what he was saying, gives the R-factor that he will be ending the session, and then gives the PC a “That ‘s it .” ( Tone 40 ) . 

	For Auditors Class 0 and above, when the Auditor is ready to end session, he gives the R-factor that he will be ending the session. 

	Then he asks:

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

	PC answers. 

	Auditor acks and notes down the answer. 

	If the PC asks a question, acknowledge and say: 
	“I will note that down for the C/S”

	Then the Auditor gives a “That’s it.” (Tone 40). The data that the C/S will get from this patter will help the C/S in paralleling the mind. 

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 AUGUST 1969

Remimeo 
Class VIII Chksht 
Case Supervisors 
Class VIIIs
FLYING RUDS

To clarify how to fly ruds:

If a rud reads, you get the data and then ask for earlier until you get an F/N.

If a rud doesn’t read, put in Suppress and recheck. If it gets any comment, natter or protest or bewilderment, put in False and clean it.

To fly all ruds you ask for an ARC Brk, if no read, put in Suppress. If it reads take it, do ARCU CDEI Earlier ARCU CDEI Earlier until you get an F/N. Then do the same with PTP. Then with MW/Hs.

If in starting a rud does not read or F/N even if Suppress is put in go to the next rud until you get one that does read. Follow it earlier to F/N.

Then F/N the 2 that didn’t read.

INCORRECT

To get a rud reading with or without Suppress and then fail to follow it earlier and to continue to call it and take only reads is incorrect.

CORRECT

If a rud reads you always follow it earlier until it F/Ns.

You do NOT continue to test it with a meter and do NOT leave it just because it fails to read again.

If a rud reads you clean it with earlier, earlier, earlier to F/N.

If a rud reads and the read is false you clean false.

There are TWO actions possible in flying ruds.

1. 	The rud is not out. If it didn’t read you check suppress. If it read but is in any way protested you clean false.

2. 	The rud is out. You get the data, you follow it earlier earlier until it F/Ns. You do not continue to check it for reads.

GREEN FORM

This applies also to handling ruds on the Green Form.
ARC BREAK

If there is an ARC Break you get it, use ARCU and CDEI, indicate, then if no F/N you follow it earlier, get ARCU CDEI, indicate, if no F/N you get an earlier one on and on, always with ARCU CDEI until you get an F/N.

PTP

If you get a PTP you follow it earlier earlier earlier until you get an F/N.

MISSED WITHHOLD

If you get a withhold you find out WHO missed it, then another and another using Suppress. If protest you put in false. You will find these W/Hs also go earlier like any other chain but they don’t have to.

MIXING METHODS

If you get a rud read and the pc gives you one you don’t then check the read again. You get more until you get an F/N.

To get a rud answered and then check suppress and its read is mixing 1 and 2 above.

FALSE

   “Has anyone said you had a ......when you didn’t have one?” is the answer to protested ruds.

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

Any VIII should be able to fly any rud at will. The above clarifies HCOB and Tape data on this subject.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH: ldm .ei.rd 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

Remimeo                                                11 APRIL 1974
Tech Checksheets
as applicable

ARC BREAK HANDLING

(Data from LRH C/S of 13 Feb 1972)

	Here is some additional expertise on the ARC Break Rudiment from an LRH C/ S: 

	“Auditor assesses ARC Brk incorrectly: 
A  sF  /
R  x   x
C  F   x
U x   x

	(The Auditor) “is doing it by elimination, doing it twice because of a possible instant read fault. 

	“You assess it once, ask the pc if it’s right, if he says no, rehandle. If  yes, give it to him.” 

	CDEINR follows the same rule. 

	“Assessing by elimination is done on double two item reads. 

	But a hot auditor does it on best largest instant read.” 

	The auditor that knows his business does not miss the read the pc will also brighten up, even if ever so slightly, on the very first assessment. PROVIDED THE RIGHT ITEM HAS BEEN GOTTEN. 

	Sometimes the pc will originate, “Yes I guess it was R, but to me it really is more a break in communication,” (for example). The wise auditor then says “Thank you” and indicate the “C.” 

	Any goofing auditor should go to Cramming.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 AUGUST 1971
Remimeo
All Auditors	 
Acad Level IV 	(HCO B 24 May 1970 Revised)
Class VIIIs
HGCs
Class VIII Checksheet	          C/S Series 1
Class VI Checksheet
Class III Checksheet
C/S Course Checksheet
HSST	      AUDITOR’S RIGHTS
Internes
(Revised to update and delete the O/R List
and add Auditing Over Out Ruds.
All changes are in this type style. )

AUDITOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR C/Ses

An auditor who receives a Case Supervisor direction (C/S) of what to audit on a pc is NOT discharged of his responsibility as an auditor.

THE AUDITOR HAS A SERIES OF RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ARE PART OF EVERY C/S HE GETS TO AUDIT.

ACCEPTING THE PC

No auditor is required to accept a specific pc just because the pc is assigned to him.

If an auditor does not believe he can help that particular pc or if he dislikes auditing that particular pc the auditor has a right to refuse to audit that pc. The auditor must state why.

The Case Supervisor, Director of Processing or Director of Review, nor any of their seniors, may not discipline the auditor for refusing to audit a particular pc.

An auditor who refuses to audit his quota of hours or sessions is of course subject to action.

Thus refusing to audit a particular pc, so long as one is not refusing to audit other pcs, is not actionable.

“I do not wish to audit this pc because______. I am willing to audit other pcs,” is the legal auditor statement in the matter.

Some pcs get a bad name with some auditors, some don’t appreciate the auditing, some conflict with a particular auditor’s own personality. There are such instances. It does not mean certain pcs cannot be helped by others.

It is also true that an auditor who dislikes a pc may not do a good job so the rule also has a practical side to it.

One auditor disliked young men and did a bad job on them. Another disliked old ladies and chopped them up in session. One pc had messed up several Scientologists and couldn’t find anyone to audit him at all.

We are not auditing people to make amends to the world.

Thus an auditor has a right to reject or accept the pcs he is given.

ACCEPTING A C/S

When the auditor gets a C/S to do on a case and if he thinks it is not the correct thing to do he has the right to reject the C/S for that pc and require another one he can agree to.

The auditor does not have the right to start doing a C/S and change it during the session except as noted below.

The auditor may NOT C/S in the auditing chair while auditing the pc. If he has NO Case Supervisor at all the auditor still audits from a C/S. He writes the C/S before session and adheres to it in session. To do something else and not follow the C/S is called ‘‘C/Sing in the chair’’ and is very poor form as it leads to Q and A.

STALE DATED C/S

A C/S that is a week or two old or a Repair (Progress) Pgm that is a month or two old is dynamite.

This is called a “Stale Dated Pgm’’ or a ‘‘Stale Dated C/S” meaning it is too old to be valid.

It should have been done sooner. The pc of last week when the C/S was written may have been well and happily employed but a week later may have headaches and reprimand from the boss.

It is dangerous to accept a Repair (Progress) Pgm if it is old.

The auditor who sees his C/S is old and sees the pc has Bad Indicators is justified in demanding a fresh C/S giving his reasons why.

A program written in January may be completely out of date in June. Who knows what may have happened in between.

Use fresh C/Ses and fresh Pgms.

Stale Dates only occur in poorly run backlogged Divisions anyway. The real remedy is reorganize and hire more and better auditors.

ENDING THE SESSION

When the C/S he has is proving unworkable during the session, the auditor has a right to end the session and send the folder to the C/S.

Ending the session is totally up to the auditor.

If the auditor just doesn’t complete an action that was producing TA and could be completed it is of course a flunk. Such a case is just not running a basic engram the one more time through that would bring the TA down and give a proper end phenomena. This and similar actions would be an auditor error.

The judgement here is whether or not the auditor’s action is justified in ending the session.

Even though he may have made an error, the auditor cannot be blamed for the ending off of the session as that is totally up to him. He can be given a flunk for the error

AUDITING OVER OUT RUDS

Auditing a pc on something else whose ruds are out is a MAJOR AUDITING ERROR.

Even if the C/S omits “Fly a rud” or “Fly ruds” this does not justify the auditor auditing the pc over out ruds.

The auditor can do one of two things: He can Fly all ruds or he can return the folder and request ruds be flown.

The DIANETIC AUDITOR is not excused from auditing over out ruds and in an HGC must be specially cautioned not to do so but return the folder for a new C/S. Better still he should learn to Fly ruds.

INABILITY TO FLY RUDS

If an auditor cannot get a rud to F/N, cannot get any rud to F/N, he is justified in starting a Green Form.

The auditor solution to no F/N on ruds is to do a GF whether the C/S said to or not.

This is an expected action.

It is understood the auditor would use Suppress and False in trying to Fly ruds.

SESSIONS FAR APART

When a pc has not had a session for some time, or when a pc gets sessions days apart, RUDS MUST BE FLOWN. Otherwise the pc will get audited over out ruds. This can develop mental mass.

Optimum session scheduling is a series of sessions or a whole program done in a block of sessions close together. This prevents the world from throwing the pc’s ruds out between sessions.

Giving sessions far apart barely keeps up with life. The auditing time is absorbed in patching life up.

Rapid gain gets above life’s annoyances and keeps the pc there.

UNREADING ITEMS

When an item the auditor has been told to run doesn’t read on the meter, even when the auditor puts in Suppress and Invalidate on it, the auditor MUST NOT do anything with the item no matter what the C/S said.

It is expected he will see if it reads and use Suppress and Invalidate on it. And if it still doesn’t read he will be expected NOT to run it.

LISTS

When an auditor whose C/S told him to list “Who or what______” or any list question finds that the list question does not read, the auditor MUST NOT list it.

When doing a list ordered by the C/S it is assumed that the auditor will test it for read before listing and that he will NOT list an unreading question. (A read is an actual fall, not a tick or a stop.)

LIST TROUBLE

When an auditor has trouble doing a list and getting an item it is expected he will use a Prepared List like L4B to locate the trouble and handle it.

As it is very hard on a pc to mess up a list it is expected the auditor will handle the situation then and there with no further C/S directions.

HIGH TA

When the auditor sees the TA is high at session start yet the C/S says to “Fly a rud” or run a chain, the AUDITOR MUST NOT TRY TO FLY A RUD and he must not start on a chain.

Trying to bring a TA down with ARC Brks or ruds is very hard on a pc as ARC Breaks aren’t the reason TAs go up.

Seeing a high TA at start the Dianetic auditor or Scn auditor up to Class II does not start the session but sends the folder back to the C/S and for a higher class auditor to do.

Seeing a high TA at start the Scientology auditor (Class III or above) (a) checks for exteriorization in a recent session and if so the session is ended and the C/S is asked for an “Interiorization Rundown”; (b) if the pc has had an Interiorization Rundown the auditor asks the C/S for permission to do a “C/S Series 53” or a Hi-Lo TA assessment or whatever the C/S indicates. The Int RD may have been (usually is) overrun and needs rehab or correction and it is usual to check it—it is included in a “C/S 53” and a Hi-Lo TA.

These actions are expected of the auditor even when not stated in the C/S.

GOING ON HOPING

When a case is running badly session to session the LAST thing you do is go on hoping, either in auditing or C/Sing.

“Let’s try _____”, ‘‘Then this”, “Then this”, is not going to solve the case.

YOU GET DATA. You can get data by a White Form (Pc Assessment Form). You can get data from a GF fully assessed (Method 5). You can get data by 2-way comm on various subjects. You can have the D of P interview and get answers. You can even ask his mother.

You look for case errors. You study the folder back to where the pc ran well and then come forward and you’ll find the error every time.

DO NOT JUST GO ON SESSION AFTER FAILED SESSION HOPING. That’s pure idiocy.

You get data! from prepared lists, from life, from the pc, from the folder.
FIND THE BUG!

Ah, good Lord, he is a Pinkerton Agent sworn to secrecy! He does yoga exercises after every session. He was tried for murder when he was 16 and nobody has run the engram of it.

Various auditors ran the same engram chain four times

An auditor ran Int RD twice.

After Power she had her baby and nobody ran the delivery.

He doesn’t like to talk but is a “Grade Zero”!

A dozen dozen reasons can exist

An auditor does NOT let a C/S C/S hopefully. He refuses the C/Ses until a Folder Error Summary is done and the bug found.

THINGS DONE TWICE

By carelessness the same rundowns can be called for twice and done twice or even more.

A Folder Summary inside the front cover must exist and must be kept up.

Over it there must be a program on which the case is being audited. But just because it’s covered, never neglect entering a session and what was run on the Folder Summary (FS).

If Hold it Still is ordered, see if it was run before.

Don’t let major Rundowns be done twice.

DIANETIC ITEMS must NEVER be run twice. Dianetic lists must not be scattered through a folder. Bring them together and keep them together and being brought forward.

COPY

Don’t copy Dianetic lists or worksheets from notes or items from lists.

Keep all admin neat and in the original form.

Copying makes errors possible.

RUDS GOING OUT

When the ruds go out during the session the auditor recognizes the following:

Pc Critical = W/H from auditor
Pc Antagonistic = BPC in session
No TA = Problem
Tired = Failed Purpose or no sleep
Sad = ARC Break
Soaring TA = Overrun or Protest
Dope Off = By-passed F/N or not enough sleep
No Interest = Out Ruds or no interest in the first place.

An auditor who isn’t sure what it is but runs into trouble with the pc (except on lists which he handles at once always) is smart to end off the session quickly, write down the full observation and get it to the C/S.

The auditor who is an old hand and knows what he is looking at as per above scale (and the C/S the C/S would give) handles it promptly.

Pc Critical = W/H = pull the W/H.
Pc Antagonistic = BPC = assess proper list (such as Ll C) and handle.
No TA (or case gain) = Problem = locate the problem.
Tired = no sleep or Failed Purpose = check which it is and handle.
Sad = ARC Brk = locate and handle, Itsa earlier Itsa.
Soaring TA = O/R or Protest = find which and handle. Such an O/R is usually by rehab.
Dope Off = lack of sleep or BP F/N = check on sleep, or rehab F/N.
No Interest = no interest in first place or Out Ruds = check for interest or put in ruds.
List goes wrong = BPC = handle or do L4B or any L4 at once.
Ruds won’t fly = some other error = assess GF and handle.

The auditor has no business trying to do the C/S given when it collides with and isn’t designed to handle any of the above.

If the previous session disclosed such an error and this session C/S was designed to handle and doesn’t, the auditor should end off and the next C/S should be “2-way comm for data”.

CASE NOT HANDLED

When the auditor or the Examiner collides with a pc who is asserting his case has not been handled, there should not be a new set of actions based on little data but the auditor should end off and the C/S should order a “way comm on what hasn’t been handled”.

The auditor should not at once take this up as part of any other C/S.

In other words an auditor doesn’t change the C/S to a 2-way comm on something not called for by C/S.

MAJOR ACTIONS

An auditor should never begin a major action on a case that is not “set up” for it.

As this can occur during a session it is vital to understand the rule and follow it. Otherwise a case can be bogged right down and will be hard to salvage as now a new action to repair has been added to an unrepaired action. Now, if the auditor starts a major action on a case not “set up” we get 2 things to repair where we only had I as the major action won’t work either.

Repair = patching up past auditing or recent life errors. This is done by prepared lists or completing the chain or correcting lists or even 2-way comm or prepchecks on auditors, sessions, etc.
Rudiments = setting the case up for the session action. This includes ARC Brks, PTPs, W/Hs, GF or O/R listing or any prepared list (such as L1C, etc).

Set up = getting an F/N showing and VGIs before starting any major action. It means just that—an F/N and VGIs before starting any major action. Such may require a repair action and rudiments as well.

Major Action = any—but any—action designed to change a case or general considerations or handle continual illness or improve ability. This means a Process or even a series of processes like 3 flows. It doesn’t mean a grade. It is any process the case hasn’t had.

Grade = a series of processes culminating in an exact ability attained, examined and attested to by the pc.

Program = any series of actions designed by a C/S to bring about definite results in a pc. A program usually includes several sessions.

The vast bulk of auditing errors come about because C/Ses and auditors seek to use a Major Action to repair a case.

It is a responsibility of an auditor to reject a C/S which seeks to use one or more major actions to repair a case that isn’t running well.

The auditor must understand this completely. He can be made to accept a wrong C/S for the pc and even more importantly can in his own session make the error and mess up the case.

Example: Pc has not been running well (no real TA or had a grumpy Exam report). Auditor sees C/S has ordered a major action, not a repair by prepared lists, ruds, etc. The auditor must reject the C/S as he will be made to fail in session by it.

Example: Auditor gets a C/S, “(1) Fly a rud; (2) Assess LX3; (3) Run 3-way recall, 3-way secondaries, 3-way engrams on all / / X items”. The auditor can’t get a rud to fly. Does the LX3. In other words he flunks by failing to SET UP the case. It could also go this way. Auditor can’t get a rud to fly, does a GF, gets no F/N. He MUST NOT begin a major action but MUST end off right there.

It is fatal to begin any new process on the case designed to change the case if the case is not F/N VGIs.

The pc who starts processing for the first time and is surely not F/N VGIs must be set up by repair actions! Simple rudiments, life ruds, O/R list on life, even assessing prepared lists on life, these are repair actions. The pc will sooner or later begin to fly. Now at session start you put in a rud, get F/N VGIs and CAN start major actions.

So the auditor has a responsibility not to be led up a garden path by a C/S which orders a major action on a pc who isn’t repaired or by not being able in session to get an F/N VGIs by repair.

The only exceptions are a touch assist or life ruds or the Dianetic assist all on a temporarily sick pc. But that’s repair isn’t it?

PROGRAM VIOLATIONS

When an auditor receives a C/S and sees that it violates the pc’s program he should reject it.

The pc, let us say, is supposed to finish his Dianetic Triples but is suddenly being given a Group Engram Intensive. That violates the program and also the grade.

If the pc is running badly, a repair should be ordered. If not, the program should be completed.

Example: An effort is being made to get the pc to go backtrack. This is a program containing several major actions which probably consists of several sessions. Before this program is complete and before the pc has gone backtrack, the C/S orders “(1) Fly a rud, (2) 3 S & Ds”. The auditor should recognize in 3 S & Ds a major action being run into the middle of a program and reject it. The correct action is of course the next backtrack process.

GRADE VIOLATIONS

A pc who is on a grade and hasn’t attained it yet must not be given major actions not part of that grade.

Example: Pc is on Grade 1. C/S orders a list having to do with drinking. It is not a process on that grade. It could be done after Grade I is attained and before Grade II is begun. The C/S is incorrect and should not be accepted.

ABILITY ATTAINED

Now and then before the full major action is complete or before all the grade processes are run, the pc will attain the ability of the grade or the end phenomena of the action.

This is particularly true of valence shifters or Interiorization Rundowns and can happen in grades.

The auditor should recognize it and, with the F/N VGIs always present at such moments, end off.

I know of one case who had a huge cog about Interiorization on Flow I Engrams and was pushed by both C/S and auditor to do Flows 2 and 3 who bogged so badly that it took a long while—weeks—to straighten the case out.

The ability itself gets invalidated by pushing on.

On the other hand this should never be taken as an excuse. “I think he cogged to himself so we ended off.” It must be a real “What do you know!” sort of out-loud cog with a big F/N and VVGIs and directly on the subject to end off a major action or a program or a grade before its actions are all audited.

REVIEWING REVIEWS

An auditor who gets a C/S or an order to repair a case that is running well should reject doing the action.

I have seen a case ordered to repair who had Ext Full Perception Doing Great. The repair bogged the case. The case then got running well again but a second C/S ordered a new repair which of course bogged it. Then major actions were done. The case was again repaired and rehabbed and became ok. Three times the auditor should have said NO.

FALSE REPORTS

The vilest trick that can be played on a pc is for an auditor to falsify an auditing report.
It may be thought to be “good Public Relations” (good PR) for the auditor with the C/S.

Actually it buries an error and puts the pc at risk.

INTEGRITY is a hallmark of Dianetics and Scientology.

Just because psychiatrists were dishonest is no reason for auditors to be.

The results are there to be gotten.

False reports like false attests recoil and badly on both the auditor and pc.

OVERTS ON PCS

When an auditor finds himself being nattery or critical of his pcs he should get his withholds on pcs pulled and overts on them off.

An auditor who goes sad is auditing pcs over his own ARC Break.

An auditor worried about his pc is working over a Problem.

Getting one’s ruds in on pcs or C/Ses or the org can bring new zest to life.

AUDITORS DON’T HAVE CASES

In the chair no auditor has a case.

If breath shows on a mirror held to his face he can audit.

Faint afterwards if you must but see that the pc gets to the Examiner with his F/N.

Then get yourself handled.

“WHAT HE DID WRONG”

An auditor has a right to know what he did wrong in the session that went wrong.

Most often a sour session occurs only when the rules and data in this HCO B have been violated.

But an auditor’s TRs can go out or his listing and nulling is in error.

After a session that went wrong somebody else (not the auditor) should ask the pc what the auditor did. This sometimes spots a false auditing report. But it also sometimes is a false report by the pc.

In any event, the auditor has a right to know. Then he can either correct his auditing or his know-how or he can advise the C/S the pc’s report is untrue and better repair can be done on the pc.

Savage action against an auditor is almost never called for. He was trying to help. Some people are hard to help.
Not only does an auditor have the right to be told what was wrong but he must be given the exact HCO B, date and title, that he violated.

Never take a verbal or written correction that is not in an HCO B or tape.
Don’t be party to a ‘‘hidden data line’’ that doesn’t exist

“You ruined the pc!” is not a valid statement. ‘‘You violated HCO B page____” is the charge.

No auditor may be disciplined for asking, ‘‘May I please have the tape or HCO B that was violated so I can read it or go to Cramming.”

If it isn’t on a tape, a book or an HCO B I T IS NOT TRUE and no auditor has to accept any criticism that is not based on the actual source data.

“If it isn’t written it isn’t true’’ is the best defense and the best way to improve your tech.

These are the rights of the auditor with relation to a C/S. They are all technical rights based on sound principles.

An auditor should know them and use them.

If an auditor stands on these rights and gets beaten down he should put all the facts before his nearest OTL or SO ship as something would be very wrong somewhere.

Auditing is a happy business—when it is done right.

LRH:nt jh	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1970, 1971	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[OTL means Operation-Transport Liaison which was a Sea Organization office that managed orgs or an area and was a forerunner of the Flag Operations Liaison Office (FOLO).]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER AD14
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
STYLES OF AUDITING

Note 1: Most old-time auditors, particularly Saint Hill Graduates, have been trained at one time or another in these auditing styles. Here they are given names and assigned to Levels so that they can be taught more easily and so that general auditing can be improved.

(Note 2: These have not been written before because I had not determined the results vital to each Level.)

There is a Style of auditing for each class. By Style is meant a method or custom of performing actions.

A Style is not really determined by the process being run so much. A Style is how the auditor addresses his task.

Different processes carry different style requirements perhaps, but that is not the point. Clay Table Healing at Level III can be run with Level I style and still have some gains. But an auditor trained up to the style required at Level III would do a better job not only of CT Healing but of any repetitive process.

Style is how the auditor audits. The real expert can do them all, but only after he can do each one. Style is a mark of Class. It is not individual. In our meaning, it is a distinct way to handle the tools of auditing.
LEVEL ZERO
LISTEN STYLE

At Level 0 the Style is Listen Style Auditing. Here the auditor is expected to listen to the pc. The only skill necessary is listening to another. As soon as it is ascertained that the auditor is listening (not just confronting or ignoring) the auditor can be checked out. The length of time an auditor can listen without tension or strain showing could be a factor. What the pc does is not a factor considered in judging this style. Pcs, however, talk to an auditor who is really listening.

Here we have the highest point that old-time mental therapies reached (when they did reach it), such as psychoanalysis, when they helped anyone. Mostly they were well below this, evaluating, invalidating, interrupting. These three things are what the instructor in this style should try to put across to the HAS student.

Listen Style should not be complicated by expecting more of the auditor than just this: Listen to the pc without evaluating, invalidating or interrupting.

Adding on higher skills like “Is the pc talking interestingly?” or even “Is the pc talking?” is no part of this style. When this auditor gets in trouble and the pc won’t talk or isn’t interested, a higher classed auditor is called in, a new question given by the supervisor, etc.

It really isn’t “Itsa” to be very technical. Itsa is the action of the pc saying, “It’s a this” or “It’s a that.” Getting the pc to Itsa is quite beyond Listen Style auditors where the pc won’t. It’s the supervisor or the question on the blackboard that gets the pc to Itsa.
The ability to listen, learned well, stays with the auditor up through the grades. One doesn’t cease to use it even at Level VI. But one has to learn it somewhere and that’s at Level Zero. So Listen Style Auditing is just listening. It thereafter adds into the other styles.

LEVEL ONE
MUZZLED AUDITING

This could also be called rote style auditing.

Muzzled Auditing has been with us many years. It is the stark total of TRs 0 to 4 and not anything else added.

It is called so because auditors too often added in comments, Qed and Aed, deviated, discussed and otherwise messed up a session. Muzzle meant a “muzzle was put on them”, figuratively speaking, so they would only state the auditing command and ack.

Repetitive Command Auditing, using TRs 0 to 4, at Level One is done completely muzzled.

This could be called Muzzled Repetitive Auditing Style but will be called “Muzzled Style” for the sake of brevity.

It has been a matter of long experience that pcs who didn’t make gains with the partially trained auditor permitted to two-way comm, did make gains the instant the auditor was muzzled: to wit, not permitted to do a thing but run the process, permitted to say nothing but the commands and acknowledge them and handle pc originations by simple acknowledgment without any other question or comment.

At Level One we don’t expect the auditor to do anything but state the command (or ask the question) with no variation, acknowledge the pc’s answer and handle the pc origins by understanding and acknowledging what the pc said.

Those processes used at Level One actually respond best to muzzled auditing and worst to misguided efforts to “Two-Way Comm”.

Listen Style combines with Muzzled Style easily. But watch out that Level One sessions don’t disintegrate to Level Zero.

Crisp, clean repetitive commands, muzzled, given and answered often, are the road out—not pc wanderings.

A pc at this Level is instructed in exactly what is expected of him, exactly what the auditor will do. The pc is even put through a few “do birds fly?” cycles until the pc gets the idea. Then the processing works.

An auditor trying to do Muzzled Repetitive Auditing on a pc who, through past “therapy experience”, is rambling on and on is a sad sight. It means that control is out (or that the pc never got above Level Zero).

It’s the number of commands given and answered in a unit of auditing time that gets gains. To that add the correctly chosen repetitive process and you have a release in short order, using the processes of this Level.

To follow limp Listen Style with crisp, controlled Muzzled Style may be a shock. But they are each the lowest of the two families of auditing styles—Totally Permissive and Totally Controlled. And they are so different each is easy to learn with no confusion. It’s been the lack of difference amongst styles that confuses the student into slopping about. Well, these two are different enough—Listen Style and Muzzled Style—to set anybody straight.

LEVEL TWO
GUIDING STYLE AUDITING

An old-time auditor would have recognized this style under two separate names: (a) Two-Way Comm and (b) Formal Auditing.

We condense these two old styles under one new name: Guiding Style Auditing.

One first guides the pc by “two-way comm” into some subject that has to be handled or into revealing what should be handled and then the auditor handles it with formal repetitive commands.

Guiding Style Auditing becomes feasible only when a student can do Listen Style and Muzzled Style Auditing well.

Formerly the student who couldn’t confront or duplicate a command took refuge in sloppy discussions with the pc and called it auditing or “Two-Way Comm”.

The first thing to know about Guiding Style is that one lets the pc talk and Itsa without chop, but also gets the pc steered into the proper subject and gets the job done with repetitive commands.

We presuppose the auditor at this Level has had enough case gain to be able to occupy the viewpoint of the auditor and therefore to be able to observe the pc. We also presuppose at this Level that the auditor, being able to occupy a viewpoint, is therefore more self-determined, the two things being related. (One can only be self-determined when one can observe the actual situation before one: otherwise a being is delusion-determined or other-determined.)

Thus in Guiding Style Auditing, the auditor is there to find out what’s what from the pc and then apply the needful remedy.

Most of the processes in the Book of Remedies are included in this Level (II). To use those, one has to observe the pc, discover what the pc is doing, and remedy the pc’s case accordingly.

The result for the pc is a far-reaching re-orientation in Life.

Thus the essentials of Guiding Style Auditing consist of Two-Way Comm that steers the pc into revealing a difficulty followed by a repetitive process to handle what has been revealed.

One does expert TRs but one may discuss things with the pc, let the pc talk and in general one audits the pc before one, establishing what that pc needs and then doing it with crisp repetitive auditing, but all the while alert to changes in the pc.

One runs at this Level against Tone Arm Action, paying little or no heed to the needle except as a centering device for TA position. One even establishes what’s to be done by the action of the Tone Arm. (The process of storing up things to run on the pc by seeing what fell when he was running what’s being run, now belongs at this Level (II) and will be re-numbered accordingly.)

At II one expects to handle a lot of chronic PTPs, overts, ARC Breaks with Life (but not session ARC Breaks, that being a needle action, session ARC Breaks being sorted out by a higher classed auditor if they occur).

To get such things done (PTPs, overts and other remedies) in the session the auditor must have a pc “willing to talk to the auditor about his difficulties”. That presupposes we have an auditor at this Level who can ask questions, not repetitive, that guide the pc into talking about the difficulty that needs to be handled.

Great command of TR 4 is the primary difference in TRs from Level I. One understands, when one doesn’t, by asking more questions, and by really acknowledging only when one has really understood it.

Guided comm is the clue to control at this Level. One should easily guide the pc’s comm in and out and around without chopping the pc or wasting session time. As soon as an auditor gets the idea of finite result or, that is to say, a specific and definite result expected, all this is easy. Pc has a PTP. Example: Auditor has to have the idea he is to locate and destimulate the PTP so pc is not bothered about it (and isn’t being driven to do something about it) as the finite result.

The auditor at II is trained to audit the pc before him, get the pc into comm, guide the pc toward data needful to choose a process and then to run the process necessary to resolve that thing found, usually by repetitive command and always by TA.

The Book of Remedies is the key to this Level and this auditing style.

One listens but only to what one has guided the pc into. One runs repetitive commands with good TR 4. And one may search around for quite a while before one is satisfied he has the answer from the pc needful to resolve a certain aspect of the pc’s case.

O/W can be run at Level I. But at Level II one may guide the pc into divulging what the pc considers a real overt act and, having that, then guide the pc through all the reasons it wasn’t an overt and so eventually blow it.

Half-acknowledgment is also taught at Level II—the ways of keeping a pc talking by giving the pc the feeling he is being heard and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2.

Big or multiple acknowledgment is also taught to shut the pc off when the pc is going off the subject.

LEVEL III
ABRIDGED STYLE AUDITING

By Abridged is meant “abbreviated”, shorn of extras. Any not actually needful auditing command is deleted.

For instance, at Level I the auditor always says, when the pc wanders off the subject, “I will repeat the auditing command” and does so. In Abridged Style the auditor omits this when it isn’t necessary and just asks the command again if the pc has forgotten it.

In this style we have shifted from pure rote to a sensible use or omission as needful. We still use repetitive commands expertly, but we don’t use rote that is unnecessary to the situation.

Two-Way Comm comes into its own at Level III. But with heavy use of repetitive commands.

At this Level we have as the primary process, Clay Table Healing. In this an auditor must make sure the commands are followed exactly. No auditing command is ever let go of until that actual command is answered by the pc.

But at the same time, one doesn’t necessarily give every auditing command the process has in its rundown.

In Clay Table Healing one is supposed to make sure the pc is satisfied each time. This is done more often by observation than command. Yet it is done.

We suppose at III that we have an auditor who is in pretty fine shape and can observe. Thus we see the pc is satisfied and don’t mention it. Thus we see when the pc is not certain and so we get something the pc is certain of in answering the question.

On the other hand, one gives all the necessary commands crisply and definitely and gets them executed.

Prepchecking and needle usage is taught at Level III as well as Clay Table Healing. Auditing by List is also taught. In Abridged Style Auditing one may find the pc (being cleaned up on a list question) giving half a dozen answers in a rush. One doesn’t stop the pc from doing so, one half acknowledges, and lets the pc go on. One is in actual fact handling a bigger auditing comm cycle, that is all. The question elicits more than one answer which is really only one answer. And when that answer is given, it is acknowledged.

One sees when a needle is clean without some formula set of questions that invalidate all the pc’s relief. And one sees it isn’t clean by the continued puzzle on the pc’s face.

There are tricks involved here. One asks a question of the pc with the key word in it and notes that the needle doesn’t tremble, and so concludes the question about the word is flat. And so doesn’t check it again. Example: “Has anything else been suppressed?” One eye on pc, one on needle, needle didn’t quiver. Pc looks noncommittal. Auditor says, “All right, on      “ and goes on to next question, eliminating a pc’s possible protest read that can be mistaken for another “suppress”.

In Abridged Style Auditing one sticks to the essentials and drops rote where it impedes case advance. But that doesn’t mean one wanders about. One is even more crisp and thorough with Abridged Style Auditing than in rote.

One is watching what happens and doing exactly enough to achieve the expected result.

By “Abridged” is meant getting the exact job done—the shortest way between two points—with no waste questions.

By now the student should know that he runs a process to achieve an exact result and he gets the process run in a way to achieve that result in the smallest amount of time.

The student is taught to guide rapidly, to have no time for wide excursions.

The processes at this Level are all rat-a-tat-tat processes—CT Healing, Prepchecking, Auditing by List.

Again it’s the number of times the question is answered per unit of auditing time that makes for speed of result.
LEVEL IV
DIRECT STYLE AUDITING

By direct we mean straight, concentrated, intense, applied in a direct manner.
We do not mean direct in the sense of to direct somebody or to guide. We mean it is direct.

By direct, we don’t mean frank or choppy. On the contrary, we put the pc’s attention on his bank and anything we do is calculated only to make that attention more direct.
It could also mean that we are not auditing by vias. We are auditing straight at the things that need to be reached to make somebody clear.

Other than this the auditing attitude is very easy and relaxed.

At Level IV we have Clay Table Clearing and we have Assessment type processes.

These two types of process are both astonishingly direct. They are aimed directly at the Reactive Mind. They are done in a direct manner.

In CT Clearing we have almost total work and Itsa from pcs. From one end of a session to another, we may have only a few auditing commands. For a pc on CT Clearing does almost all the work if he is in session at all.

Thus we have another implication in the word “direct”. The pc is talking directly to the auditor about what he is making and why in CT Clearing. The auditor hardly ever talks at all.

In assessment the auditor is aiming directly at the pc’s bank and wants no pc in front of it thinking, speculating, maundering or Itsaing. Thus this assessment is a very direct action.

All this requires easy, smooth, steel-hand-in-a-velvet-glove control of the pc. It looks easy and relaxed as a style, it is straight as a Toledo blade.

The trick is to be direct in what’s wanted and not deviate. The auditor settles what’s to be done, gives the command and then the pc may work for a long time, the auditor alert, attentive, completely relaxed.

In assessment the auditor often pays no attention to the pc at all, as in ARC Breaks or assessing lists. Indeed, a pc at this level is trained to be quiet during the assessment of a list.

And in CT Clearing an auditor may be quiet for an hour at a stretch.

The tests are: Can the auditor keep the pc quiet while assessing without ARC Breaking the pc? Can the auditor order the pc to do something and then, the pc working on it, can the auditor remain quiet and attentive for an hour, understanding everything and interrupt alertly only when he doesn’t understand and get the pc to make it clearer to him? Again without ARC Breaking the pc.

You could confuse this Direct Style with Listen Style if you merely glanced at a session of CT Clearing. But what a difference. In Listen Style the pc is blundering on and on and on. In Direct Style the pc wanders off the line an inch and starts to Itsa, let us say, with no clay work and after it was obvious to the auditor that this pc had forgotten the clay, you’d see the auditor, quick as a foil, look at the pc, very interestedly and say, “Let’s see that in Clay.” Or the pc doesn’t really give an ability he wants to improve and you’d hear a quiet persuasive auditor voice, “Are you quite certain you want to improve that? Sounds like a goal to me. Just something, some ability you know, you’d like to improve.”

You could call this style One-Way Auditing. When the pc is given his orders, after that it’s all from the pc to the auditor, and all involved with carrying out that auditing instruction. When the auditor is assessing it is all from the auditor to the pc. Only when the assessment action hits a snag like a PTP is there any other auditing style used.

This is a very extreme auditing style. It is straightforward—direct.
But when needful, as in any Level, the styles learned below it are often also employed, but never in the actual actions of getting CT Clearing and Assessment done.

(Note: Level V would be the same style as VI below.)

LEVEL VI
ALL STYLE

So far, we have dealt with simple actions.

Now we have an auditor handling a meter and a pc who Itsa’s and Cognites and gets PTPs and ARC Breaks and Line Charges and Cognites and who finds Items and lists and who must be handled, handled, handled all the way.

As auditing TA for a 2l/2 hour session can go to 79 or 125 divisions (compared to 10 or 15 for the lowest level), the pace of the session is greater. It is this pace that makes perfect ability at each lower level vital when they combine into All Style. For each is now faster.

So, we learn All Style by learning each of the lower styles well, and then observe and apply the style needed every time it is needed, shifting styles as often as once every minute!

The best way to learn All Style is to become expert at each lower style so that one does the style correct for the situation each time the situation requiring that style occurs.

It is less rough than it looks. But it is also very demanding.

Use the wrong style on a situation and you’ve had it. ARC Break! No progress!

Example: Right in the middle of an assessment the needle gets dirty. The auditor can’t continue—or shouldn’t. The auditor, in Direct Style, looks up to see a-puzzled frown. The auditor has to shift to Guiding Style to find out what ails the pc (who probably doesn’t really know), then to Listen Style while the pc cognites on a chronic PTP that just emerged and bothered the pc, then to Direct Style to finish the Assessment that was in progress.

The only way an auditor can get confused by All Style is by not being good at one of the lower level styles.

Careful inspection will show where the student using All Style is slipping. One then gets the student to review that style that was not well learned and practice it a bit.

So All Style, when poorly done, is very easy to remedy for it will be in error on one or more of the lower level styles. And as all these can be independently taught, the whole can be co-ordinated. All Style is hard to do only when one hasn’t mastered one of the lower level styles.

SUMMARY

These are the important Styles of Auditing. There have been others but they are only variations of those given in this HCO Bulletin. Tone 40 Style is the most notable one missing. It remains as a practice style at Level One to teach fearless body handling and to teach one to get his command obeyed. It is no longer used in practice.

As it was necessary to have every result and every process for each Level to finalize Styles of Auditing, I left this until last and here it is.

Please note that none of these Styles violate the auditing comm cycle or the TRs.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL 1971
Remimeo
HDC Checksht
Cse Sup Checksht
Class 0 Checksht
AUDITING COMM CYCLE

(Reference HCO B 26 Apr 71,
“TRs AND COGNITIONS”)

The following AUDITING comm cycle is taken from SHSBC tapes.

An auditor runs the session. He gives the pc the session action without pulling the pc’s attention heavily on the auditor. He does not leave the pc inactive or floundering without anything to do. He does not leave the pc to make a session out of it. The auditor makes the session. He doesn’t wait for the pc to run down like a clock or just sit there while the TA soars after an F/N.

The auditor runs the session. He knows what to do for everything that can happen.

And this is the Auditing Comm cycle that is always in use.

1. 	Is the pc ready to receive the command? (appearance, presence)
2. 	Auditor gives command/question to pc (cause, distance, effect).
3. 	Pc looks to bank for answer (Itsa maker line).
4. 	Pc receives answer from bank.
5. 	Pc gives answer to auditor (cause, distance, effect).
6. 	Auditor acknowledges pc.
7. 	Auditor sees that pc received ack (attention).
8. 	New cycle beginning with (1).

LRH:mes.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

Remimeo	HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R
Auditors	Issue II
Supervisors	REVISED 6 DECEMBER 1974
Students
Tech & Qual
Basic Auditing Series 2R

THE TWO PARTS OF AUDITING
From the LRH Tape 2 July 1964,
“O/W Modernised and Reviewed”

In order to do something for somebody you have to have a communication line to that person.

Communication lines depend upon reality and communication and affinity and where an individual is too demanding the affinity tends to break down slightly.

Processing goes in two stages.

1. 	To get into communication with that which you are trying to process.

2. 	Do something for him.

There is many a pc who will go around raving about his auditor, whose auditor has not done anything for the pc. All that has happened is that a tremendous communication line has been established with the pc and this is so novel and so strange to the pc that he then considers that something miraculous has occurred.

Something miraculous has occurred but in this particular instance the auditor has totally neglected why he formed that communication line in the first place. He formed it in the first place to do something for the pc.

He very often mistakes the fact that he has formed a communication line, and the reaction on the pc for his having formed one, with having done something for the pc.

There are two stages.

1. 	Form a communication line.

2. 	Do something for the pc.

Those are the two distinct stages. It is something like (I) Walking up to the bus, and (2) Driving off. If you don’t drive off you never go anyplace.

It is a very tricky and no small thing to be able to communicate to a human being who has never been communicated to before. This is quite remarkable, and is such a remarkable feat that it appears to be an end-all of Scientology to some.

But you see that’s just walking up to the bus. Now you have got to go someplace.

Any upset that the individual has is so poised, it is so delicately balanced, that it is difficult to maintain. It is not difficult to get well. It is very hard to remain batty. A fellow has to work at it.
If your communication line is very good and very smooth and if your auditing discipline is perfect so you don’t upset this communication line and if you just made a foray of no more importance than saying something like—What are you doing that’s sensible and why is it sensible?—and kept your communication line up all the while and kept your affinity up with the pc all the while, did it with perfect discipline, you would see more aberration fall to pieces per square inch than you ever thought could exist.

Now that’s what I mean when I say do something for the pc.

You must audit well, get perfect discipline and get your communication cycle in. Don’t ARC Break the pc, let your cycles of action complete.

All of that is simply an entrance. You see, the discipline of Scientology makes it possible to do this, and one of the reasons why other fields of the mind never got anyplace and could never get near anybody was because they couldn’t communicate to anybody.

So that discipline is important.

That is the ladder that goes up to the door and if you can’t get to the door you can’t do anything.

The perfect discipline of which we speak, the perfect communication cycle, the perfect auditor presence, perfect meter reading—all of these things are just to get you in a state where you can do something for somebody.

So when you’re real slow picking up the discipline, real slow picking up keeping in the communication cycle, when you’re pokey on the subject you are still 9 miles from the ball. You’re not even attending yet.

What you want to be able to do is audit perfectly. By that we mean keep in a communication cycle, be able to approach the pc, be able to talk to the pc, and be able to maintain the ARC. Get the pc to give you answers to your questions. Be able to read a meter and get the reactions.

All of those things have to be awfully good because it’s very difficult to get a communication line in to somebody anyway. They all have to be present and they all have to be perfect. If they are all present and they are all perfect, then we can start to process somebody. THEN we can start to process somebody.

I’m giving you an entrance point here of, if all your cycles were perfect, if you were able to sit there and confront the pc and meter that pc and keep your auditing report and do all these multiple various things, and keep a pleasant smile on your face and not chop his communication, well then there is something you do with these things. It takes a process now.

We used to have it all backwards. We used to try and teach people what they could do for somebody. But they could never get in communication with him to do it, so therefore you had failures in processing.

The most elementary procedure would be—’’What do you think is sensible?’’—or anything of that sort. The pc says, “Well, I think horses sleep in beds. That’s sensible. ‘‘ The auditor says, ‘‘Alright Now why is that sensible?’’ The pc says, “Well ... ah .... Hey! . . . That’s not sensible. That’s nuts!” You actually wouldn’t have to do anything more than that He’s cognited. You’ve flattened it. It’s so easy to do, but you keep looking for some magic.

Well, your magic is in getting into communication with the person. The rest is very easy to do, all you have to do is remain in communication with the person while you are doing this, and realize that these huge aberrations he’s got are poised with the most fantastically delicate balance on little pinheads. All you have to do is to phooph and these things crash
Now if you’re not in communication with this person he doesn’t cognite. He takes it as an accusative action. He tries to justify thinking that way. He tries to make himself look good to you and tries to put on a public front of some kind or another. He tries to hold up his status.

Anytime I see a bunch of pcs around who want to jump happily to something else because sane people run on that and crazy people run on something else, and they never have to be run on the crazy one, I right away know their auditors are not in communication with them and that auditing discipline itself has broken down because the pc is trying to justify himself and trying to uphold his own status. So he must be defending himself against the auditor.

The auditor couldn’t possibly be in communication with him.

So we are right back to the fundamental of why didn’t the auditor get into comm with the pc in the first place.

You get into communication with the pc in the first place by doing proper Scientology discipline. That is not any trick. It goes off 1, 2, 3, 4

You sit down and you start the session and you start handling the pc and his problems and that sort of thing and you DO IT BY COMPLETING YOUR COMMUNICATION CYCLES AND NOT CUTTING HIS COMMUNICATION—THE VERY THINGS YOU ARE TAUGHT IN THE TRs, and you find you are in communication with the person. Now you’ve got to do something for the person.

Unless, having gotten into communication, you do something for the person, you lose your communication line because the R-Factor of why you’re in communication with the pc breaks down. He doesn’t think you’re so good, and you go out of communication with him. That having happened, the person will be in a sort of status defensive and wonder why he is being processed.

On the other hand, if you have done something for the pc and he has had his cognition, and you try and go on and get more TA action out of the fact that “all horses sleep in beds”—you don’t get there as you’ve already flattened the process.

You can over-audit and you can under-audit.

If you don’t notice that one answer come your way, that indicates you have done something for the pc and if you keep him working on that same thing, your TA action will disappear, your pc will get resentful and you’ll lose your communication line.

He’s already had the cognition you see. You are now restimulating the pc. You have gotten your key-out destimulation factor—it has occurred right before your eyes. You have done something for the pc. One more mention of the subject and you’ve had it.

There are a lot of things you could do with the pc, without doing anything for him. You can turn on some very very handsome somatics on a pc at one time or another without turning them off either. You’ve got to do something for the pc, not to him.

Now you can be doing something (A), and the pc is doing (B), and you go on doing (A), while the pc is doing (B) then somewhere on down the line you wind up in a hell of a mess and you wonder what happened.

Well the pc never did what you said so you didn’t do anything for the pc. There was in actual fact no barrier to your willingness to do something for the pc but there must have been a tremendous barrier to your understanding of what was going on.

That you could ask (A), while the pc answered (B), in itself showed the auditor observation was very poor so therefore the auditor wasn’t in communication with the pc.
So again the communication factor was out and once more we weren’t doing anything for the pc.

It requires of the auditor discipline to keep in his communication line. He has got to stay in communication with his pc. Those cycles have got to be perfect. He can’t be distracting the pc’s attention onto the TA, e.g. “I’m not getting any TA action now.” That’s not staying in communication with the pc—has nothing to do with it. You’re distracting the pc from his own zones and areas.

Don’t put the pc’s attention out of session. Keep him going and keep that communication line in. And the next requirement is to do something productive for the pc using the communication line.

LRH:nt:jh	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1971, 1974                          	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard                             
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971
Issue III
Reissued 1 December 1974
Remimeo
Auditors	CANCELS
Supervisors	BTB OF 23 MAY 1971
Students	Issue III
Tech & Qual	SAME TITLE

Basic Auditing Series 3

THE THREE IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION LINES

From the LRH Tape 15 Oct 63,
‘‘Essentials of Auditing”

When you are sitting in an auditing session what are the 3 important communication lines and what is their order of importance?

1. 	The first is the Pc’s line to his bank. The Itsa Maker line.

2. 	The second is the Pc’s line to the Auditor. The Itsa line.

3. 	The third is the Auditor’s line to the Pc. The What’s-it line.

Now the definition, “Willing to talk to the Auditor”, is very easy to interpret as “Talking to the Auditor”. So the Auditor cuts the line the Pc has to the bank in order to get the Pc to talk, because “It’s the Itsa line that blows the charge,” he says.

So the Auditor cuts the Pc’s communication line with his bank in order to bring about an Itsa line—and then he wonders why he gets no TA action and why the Pc ARC Breaks.

This cut communication line is not perceivable to the naked eye. It’s hidden because it’s from the Pc—a Thetan unseen by the Auditor—to the Pc’s bank—unseen by the Auditor.

The Auditor is simply there to use the What’s-it line in order to get the Pc to confront his bank. The charge blows off it to the degree that it’s confronted and this is represented by the Itsa line.

The Itsa line is a report on what has been as-ised, that gives it its flow.

The sequence of use of these lines in an auditing cycle is 3, 1, and then 2.

Where the Auditor neglects this hidden line from the Pc to the Pc’s bank, where he doesn’t understand that hidden line and can’t integrate it or do anything with it he is going to fail.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder
LRH:nt.ts.rd 
Copyright ©1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

Remimeo	HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R
Auditors	Issue IV
Supervisors	REVISED 4 DECEMBER 1974
Students
Tech & Qual

Basic Auditing Series 4R

COMMUNICATION CYCLES WITHIN THE
AUDITING CYCLE

(Taken from the LRH Tape, “Comm Cycles
in Auditing”, 25 July 1963)

The difficulty that an Auditor gets into is normally found in his own auditing cycle.

There are basically two communication cycles between the Auditor and the Pc that make up the auditing cycle.

They are cause, distance, effect with the Auditor at cause and the Pc at effect, and cause, distance, effect with the Pc at cause and the Auditor at effect.

Cause-----------Distance---------->Effect

Auditor                                    				                          Pc

Effect<----------Distance------------Cause

These are completely distinct one from the other. The only thing that connects them and makes an auditing cycle, is the fact that the Auditor, on his communication cycle, has calculatingly restimulated something in the Pc which is then discharged by the Pc’s communication cycle.

What the Auditor has said has caused a restimulation and then the Pc needs to answer the question to get rid of the restimulation.

If the Pc does not answer the question he doesn’t get rid of the restimulation. That is the game that is being played in an auditing cycle and that is the entirety of the game. (Some auditing breaks down because the Auditor is unwilling to restimulate the Pc.)

There is a little extra communication cycle on here. The Auditor says, “Thank you” and you have this as the acknowledgement cycle.

	C----------------------Command------------------------->E

Auditor     	E<----------------------Answer ---------------------------C		  Pc

		C-----------------Acknowledgement-------------------->E

Now there are some little inner cycles that can throw you off and make you think that there are some other things to the auditing cycle. There is another little shadow cycle: it is the observation of “Has the Pc received the auditing command?” This is such a tiny “cause” that nearly all Auditors who are having any trouble finding out what’s going on with the Pc are missing this one. “Does he receive it?” Actually there is another cause in here and you’re missing that one when you’re not perceiving the Pc.

You can tell by looking at the Pc that he didn’t hear or understand what you’d said or that he was doing something peculiar with the command he was receiving. Whatever that message is in response, it rides on this line.

		                              Did Pc receive,
	c--------------------Understand and-----------------------c
				    answer command

	C----------------------Command------------------------->E

Auditor     	E<----------------------Answer ---------------------------C		  Pc

		C-----------------Acknowledgement-------------------->E

An Auditor who isn’t watching a Pc at all never notices a Pc who isn’t receiving or understanding the auditing command. Then all of a sudden somewhere along the line there is an ARC Break and then we do assessments and we patch up the session and all kinds of things go wrong.

Well, they actually needn’t ever have gone wrong in the first place if this line had been in. What is the Pc doing completely aside from answering? Well, what he is doing is this other little sub-cause, distance, effect line.

Another of these tiny lines is the cause, distance, effect line of—”Is the Pc ready to receive an auditing command?”

This is the Pc causing and it rides up the line across distance, is received at the Auditor and the Auditor perceives that the Pc is doing something else.

It is an important one and you find that Auditors goof that one very often; the Pc’s attention is still on a prior action.

Now here’s another one—”Has the Pc received the acknowledgement?” Sometimes you violate this one. You have been acknowledging but you’ve never seen that he didn’t receive the acknowledgement. That perception has another little tiny one in it that actually comes on this line; it is—’’Has the Pc answered everything?’’

The Auditor is watching the Pc and the Auditor sees that the Pc has not said all that the Pc is going to say. You sometimes get into trouble with Pcs that way. Everything at “cause” hasn’t moved on down the line to effect and you haven’t perceived all of the “effect” and you go into the acknowledgement one before this line has completed itself.

That’s chopping the Pc’s communication. You didn’t let the communication cycle flow to its complete end. The acknowledgement takes place and of course it can’t go through as it’s an inflowing line and it jams right there on the Pc’s incomplete outflowing answer line.

				     Is the Pc ready	
		e<-----------------for the command?----------------------c

		                              Did Pc receive,
	c--------------------Understand and-----------------------c
				    answer command

	C----------------------Command------------------------->E
Auditor     	E<----------------------Answer ---------------------------C		  Pc
		C-----------------Acknowledgement-------------------->E

				Did Pc complete the
		e<----------------answer and  receive---------------------c
				 acknowledgement?

So if you want to break it all down, there are six communication cycles which make up one auditing cycle. Six, not more than six unless you start running into trouble. If you violate one of these six communication lines you of course are going to get into trouble which causes a mish-mash of one kind or another.

There is another communication cycle inside the auditing cycle and that is at the point of the Pc. It’s a little additional one and it’s between the Pc and himself. This is him talking to him. You’re listening to the inside of his skull when you’re examining it. /t actually can be multiple as it depends upon the complications of the mind.

This happens to be the least important of all the actions except when it isn’t being done. And of course it’s the hardest to detect when it isn’t being done. Pc says: “Yes. “ Now what has the Pc said yes to? And sometimes you are insufficiently curious. And that in essence is this internal perception of line. It includes this cause, distance, effect backflash here—”Is the Pc answering the command I gave him?”

So with this, there are seven communication cycles involved in an auditing cycle. It is a multiple cycle.

A communication cycle consists of just cause, distance, effect with intention, attention, duplication and understanding. How many of these are there in one auditing cycle? You’d have to answer that with how many principal ones there are because some auditing cycles contain a few more. If a Pc indicates that he didn’t get the command (cause, distance, effect), the Auditor would give a repeat of it (cause, distance, effect) and that would add 2 more communication cycles to the auditing cycle, so you’ve got 9—because there was a flub. So anything unusual that happens in a session adds to the number of communication cycles in the auditing cycle, but they are still all part of the auditing cycle.

Repetitive commands as an auditing cycle, is doing the same cycle over and over again.

Now there is a completely different cycle inside the same pattern. The Pc is going to originate and it’s got nothing to do with the auditing cycle. The only thing they have in common is that they both use communication cycles. But this is brand new. The Pc says something that is not germane to what the Auditor is saying or doing and you actually have to be alert for this happening at any time and the way to prepare for it is just to realize that it can happen at any time and just go into the drill that handles it. Don’t get it confused with the drill that you have as an auditing cycle. Consider it its own drill. You shift gears into this drill when the pc does something unexpected.

And, by the way, this handles such a thing as the Pc originates by throwing down the cans. That’s still an origin. It has nothing to do with the auditing cycle. Maybe the auditing cycle went to pieces and this origination cycle came in. Well, the auditing cycle can’t complete because this origin cycle is now here. That doesn’t mean that this origin has precedence or dominance but it can start and take place and have to be finished off before the auditing cycle can resume.

So this is an interruptive cycle and it is cause, distance, effect. The Pc causes something. The Auditor now has to originate as the Auditor has to understand what the Pc is talking about—and then acknowledge. And to the degree that it is hard to understand, you have the cause, distance, effect of the Auditor trying to clarify this thing; and every time he asks a question, he’s got a new communication cycle.
You can’t put a machine action at that point because the thing has to be understood. And this must be done in such a way that the Pc isn’t merely repeating his same origination or the Pc will go frantic. He’ll go frantic because he can’t get off that line—he’s stuck in time and it really upsets him. So the Auditor has to be able to understand what the devil the Pc is talking about. And there’s really no substitute for simply trying to understand it.

There is a little line where the Pc indicates he is going to say something. This is a line (cause, distance, effect) that comes before the origination takes place so you don’t run into a jam and you don’t give the auditing command. The effect at the Auditor’s point is to shut up and let him. There can be another little line (cause, distance, effect) where the Auditor indicates he is listening. Then there is the origination, the Auditor’s acknowledgement of it and then there is the perception of the fact that the Pc received the acknowledgement.

That’s your origination cycle.

An Auditor should draw all these communication cycles out on a scrap of paper. Just take a look at all these things; mock up a session and all of a sudden it will become very straight how these things are and you won’t have a couple of them jammed up. What’s mainly wrong with your auditing cycle is that you have confused a couple of communication cycles to such a degree that you don’t differentiate that they exist. That’s why you sometimes chop a Pc who is trying to answer the question.

You know whether the Pc has answered the question or not. How did you know? Even if it’s telepathy it’s cause, distance, effect. It doesn’t matter how that communication took place, you know whether he’s answered the command by a communication cycle. I don’t care how you sense this.

If you are nervy on the subject of handling the basic tool of auditing and if that’s giving you trouble (and if you get into trouble by suddenly breaking it down and analyzing it) then it should be broken down and analyzed at a time when you’re auditing something nice and simple.

I’ve given you a general pattern for an auditing cycle; maybe in working it over you can find a couple of extra communication cycles in the thing. But they are all there and if you made someone go through each one painstakingly, you would find out where his auditing cycle is jammed up. It isn’t necessarily jammed up on his ability to say “Thank you”. It may very well be jammed up in another quarter.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH:nt jh 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 R
Remimeo	Issue V
Auditors	REVISED 29 NOVEMBER 1974
Supervisors	(Revision in this type style)
Students

Basic Auditing Series 5R

THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING

From the LRH tape 6 Feb 64,
“Comm Cycle in Auditing”

The ease with which you can handle a communication cycle depends on your ability to observe what the pc is doing.

We have to add to the simplicity of the communication cycle OBNOSIS (observation of the obvious).

Your inspection of what you are doing should have ended with your training. Thereafter it should be taken up exclusively with the observation of what the pc is doing or is not doing.

Your handling of a communication cycle ought to be so instinctive and so good that you’re never worried about what you do now.

The time for you to get all this fixed up is in training. If you know your communication cycle is good you haven’t any longer got to be upset about whether you’re doing it right or not. You know yours is good, so you don’t worry about it any more.

In actual auditing, the communication cycle that you watch is the pc’s. Your business is the communication cycle and responses of the pc.

This is what makes the auditor who can crack any case and when absent you have an auditor who couldn’t crack an egg if he stepped on it.

This is the difference, it’s whether or not this auditor can observe the communication cycle of the pc and repair its various lapses.

It’s so simple.

It simply consists of asking a question that the pc can answer, and then observing that the pc answers it, and when the pc has answered it, observing that the pc has completed the answer to it and is through answering it. Then give him the acknowledgement. Then give him something else to do. You can ask the same question or you can ask another question.

Asking the pc a question he can answer involves clearing the auditing command. You also ask it of the pc so that the pc can hear it and knows what he’s being asked.

When the pc answers the question be bright enough to know that the pc is answering that question and not some other question.

You have to develop a sensitivity—when did the pc finish answering what you’ve asked. You can tell when the pc has finished. It’s a piece of knowingness. He looks like he’s finished and he feels like he’s finished. It’s part sense; it’s part his vocal intonation; but it’s an instinct that you develop. You know he’s finished.

Then knowing he’s finished answering you tell him he’s finished with an acknowledgement, OK, Good, etc. It’s like pointing out the by-passed charge to the pc. Like-”You have now found and located the by-passed charge in answer to the question and you have said it.” That’s the magic of acknowledgement.

If you don’t have that sensitivity for when the pc is finished answering—he answers, gets nothing from you, you sit there and look at him, his social machinery goes into action, he gets onto self auditing and you get no TA action.

The degree of stop you put on your acknowledgement is also your good sense because you can acknowledge a pc so hard that you finish the session right there.

It’s all very well to do this sort of thing in training and it’s forgivable, but NOT in an auditing session.

Get your own communication cycle sufficiently well repaired that you don’t have to worry about it after training.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder
LRH:nt.rd jh 
Copyright ©1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
D of T
Acad Admin
ExtCourseDir	HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JANUARY 1959
Acad Insts
D of P
Processing Admin
HCO Bd of Renew
ACC World Wide Inst
HCO

TONE OF VOICE—ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Mood can be expressed by an acknowledgement. Evaluation can also be accomplished by acknowledgement, depending on the tone of voice with which it is uttered.

There is nothing bad about expressing mood by acknowledgement, except when the acknowledgement expresses criticalness, ridicule, or humor.

LRH:-jh							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971
Issue VI

Remimeo
Auditors
Supervisors
Students	HCOB of 17 Oct 1962, Reissued verbatim as
Tech & Qual

Basic Auditing Series 6

AUDITOR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND

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

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

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

INVALIDATION

To say “You did not speak loud enough____” or any other use of “you” is an invalidation.

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

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

EVALUATION

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

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

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

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

Children also do this to annoy.

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

Further, don’t gesture to find out. To say, pointing, “You mean this item, then,” is not only an evaluation but a nearly hypnotic command, and the pc feels he must reject very strongly.
Don’t tell the pc what the pc said and don’t gesture to find what the pc meant.

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

DRIVING IN ANCHOR POINTS

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

ROCK SLAMMER

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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

Just audit, please.

                                       	L. RON HUBBARD
                                       	Founder
LRH:nt.rd 	
Copyright © 1962, 1971 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971
Issue VII
Remimeo
Supervisors	HCOB of 7 Apr AD15, Reissued verbatim as
Students
Tech & Qual	
Basic Auditing Series 7

PREMATURE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Here’s a new discovery. Imagine my making one on the Comm Formula after all these years.

Do people ever explain to you long after you have understood?

Do people get cross with you when they are trying to tell you something?

If so, you are suffering from Premature Acknowledgement.

Like body odor and bad breath, it is not conducive to social happiness. But you don’t use Lifebuoy soap or Listerine to cure it, you use a proper comm formula.

When you “coax” a person to talk after he has begun with a nod or a low “yes” you ack, make him forget, then make him believe you haven’t got it and then make him tell you at GREAT length. He feels bad and doesn’t cognite and may ARC Break.

Try it out. Have somebody tell you about something and then encourage before he has completely told you all.

THAT’S why pcs Itsa on and on and on and on with no gain. The auditor prematurely acknowledged. THAT’S why pcs get cross “for no reason”. The auditor has prematurely and unwittingly acknowledged. THAT’S why one feels dull when talking to certain people. They prematurely acknowledge. That’s why one thinks another is stupid—that person prematurely acknowledges.

The quickest way to become a social pariah (dog) is to prematurely acknowledge. One can do it in many ways.

The quickest way to start the longest conversation is to prematurely acknowledge for the person believes he has not been understood and so begins to explain at greater and greater length.

So this was the hidden ARC Break maker, the cognition wrecker, the stupidifier, the Itsa prolonger in sessions.

And why some people believe others are stupid or don’t understand.

Any habit of agreeable noises and nods can be mistaken for acknowledgement, ends cycle on the speaker, causes him to forget, feel dull, believe the listener is stupid, get cross, get exhausted explaining and ARC Break. The missed withhold is inadvertent. One didn’t get a chance to say what one was going to say because one was stopped by premature acknowledgement. Result, missed w/h in the speaker, with all its consequences.

This can be counted on to make you feel frightened of being “agreeable with noises or gestures” for a bit and then you’ll get it straight.

What a piece of tech to remain incompletely explained. Fair scares one it does. And in the Comm Formula too!

LRH nt-rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1965, 1971	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 JULY 1965
Issue II
Remimeo
Tech Hats	HCO Division
Qual Hats	Tech Div
Qual Div

COMM CYCLE ADDITIVES

There are no additives permitted on the Auditing Comm Cycle.

Example: 	Getting the pc to state the problem after the pc has said what the problem is.

Example: 	Asking a pc if that is the answer.

Example: 	Telling pc “it didn’t react” on the meter.

Example: 	Querying the answer.

This is the WORST kind of auditing.

Processes run best MUZZLED. By muzzled is meant using ONLY TR 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 by the text.

A pc’s results will go to HELL on an additive comm cycle.

There are a hundred thousand tricks that could be added to the Auditing Comm Cycle. EVERY ONE of them is a GOOF.

The ONLY time you ever ask for a repeat is when you couldn’t hear it.

Since 1950, I’ve known that all auditors talk too much in a session. The maximum talk is the standard model session and the TR 0 to 4 Auditing Comm Cycle ONLY.

It is a serious matter to get a pc to “clarify his answer”. It is in fact an Ethics matter and if done habitually is a Suppressive Act, for it will wipe out all gains.  There are mannerism additives also.

Example: 	Waiting for the pc to look at you before you give the next command. (Pcs who won’t look at you are ARC Broken. You don’t then twist this to mean the pc has to look at you before you give the next command.)

Example: 	A lifted eyebrow at an answer.

Example: 	A questioning sort of ack.

The Whole Message is

GOOD AUDITING OCCURS WHEN THE COMM CYCLE ALONE IS USED AND IS MUZZLED.

Additives on the Auditing Comm Cycle are ANY ACTION, STATEMENT, QUESTION OR EXPRESSION GIVEN IN ADDITION TO TRs 0-4.
They are Gross Auditing Errors.  And should be regarded as such.

Auditors who add to the Auditing Comm Cycle never make Releases.  So, that’s Suppressive.

Don’t do it!

LRH:ml.cden							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1965
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED		     

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1965

Remimeo
All Students
Saint Hill Courses
All staff

CYCLICAL AND NON-CYCLICAL PROCESS
CONCLUSIONS

A Non-Cyclical Process (i.e. a repetitive process which does not cause the preclear to cycle on the Time Track) is concluded precisely as stated in HCO Bulletin 3 July 1 965.

A Cyclic Process—a repetitive process which does cause the preclear to cycle on the Time Track as in Recall type processes—must be concluded in Model Session as follows

“Where are you now on the Time Track?”

“I will continue this process until you are close to present time.” (After each command ask “When?”) When the pc is in PT, “That was the body of the session.”

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

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

E METER DATA:  INSTANT READS
PART I

A lecture given on
24 May 1962

Thank you.

Well, I’m glad to be in your midst. Actually, I enjoy lecturing to you. I do.

And last night enjoyed giving a session. I thought that was the most, you know? You saw me lay a couple of eggs with this pc here earlier, you know, and remember, the earlier sessions were not particularly productive of any vast gain; pc didn’t go downhill or anything. And last night, why, you see, I just got the idea that I’d better show you how to do some fishing and fumbling, and you might not have noticed what it did. It might have been all something or other.

All I did was let the meter wave until it ticked, and I just steered the pc on to a double tick. I just set out to clean up a dirty needle and actually, in that hour, made a stage of cleaning it up, and we got some of the stuff cleaned off it. And what do you know, it was right on his goal line (you don’t mind my mentioning it). It was right on his goal line and everything was fine. And you notice, I didn’t go out of this lifetime. I didn’t even go back into his childhood, nothing. I held him securely anchored in the last three years. Remember? See that? Well, that’s steering the pc. That’s just fish and fumble. You can clear up some of the most remarkable things, particularly if you’re aided and assisted by the fact that the pc has a meter pattern to start with.

But there was something very tricky last night that you might have missed—and that was just this and nothing more: was the handling of the stuck picture. Pc has a stuck picture; pc complains about stuck picture; you find session in which picture was first found; get the missed withhold off of that session. See? Don’t you go running that engram, because it’s a stuck picture, so obviously it won’t run.

Well, enough of that. I’m going to talk about the meter.

Now, what’s the date? 25th?

Audience: 24th.

Fourth?

Audience: 24th.

Well, what are you doing in the 24th? I was in the 25th. Well, I’ll come back to the 24th. All right. It’s the first lecture, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 24th May, ‘62.

We have a lecture about the E-Meter. Once there was a cat, and he went sniffing along corridors in the open cracks below auditing-room doors. Heh, heh, heh. And after being baffled for a very long time, he became a very wise cat. And out of all this we have a single plea: Use the E-Meter. I know that seems like a lot to ask, but if you use it, it’ll treat you right, and if you misuse it, wrong.
 
Once again we have a complete breakdown in progress that occurred here in September of 1961 whereby everybody fashionably was reading the E-Meter cross-eyed with the rudiments wildly out and everybody was plowing into the ground. And we have come again into that particular period.

Now, till recently I have talked to you scoldishly and I’ve said, “Why don’t you make your pcs look good?” Remember? Well, I’ll tell you, your pcs don’t look good because you’re not reading an E-Meter. That’s all. It’s a gross auditing error~imple, factual, horrible to contemplate, but true. It isn’t the way you are holding your little finger in a session. It isn’t the fact that your thumb is insufficiently callused on the tone arm. It isn’t any one of a thousand things. It isn’t because you don’t have a command of Model Session. It isn’t because of something weird or wonderful in the pc. It’s just that you’re not reading an E-Meter. That’s all.

Now, that sounds horrible, but I don’t think this applies to all of you. It couldn’t. But it must apply in some degree to all of you because I don’t see anybody listening to this lecture three feet off his chair.

Today all you have to do is just exactly what you have to do. You don’t have to do anything fancy. And that is a very, very rough thing to get through to you. We actually are there, as far as technology is concerned—been there for some time, but been improving, improving, improving, little bits, little bits, little bits. But, do you know, I don’t know a thing today that you could audit on somebody that wouldn’t produce a remarkable gain. See? I don’t know anything we’re using that wouldn’t produce a remarkable gain on the pc.

And I caught you out this way: I audit a pc with exactly what you’re using, he shines. You audit a pc, and I get an instructor to check it and your rudiments are all out. How could your rudiments be out? It isn’t that you’re not asking the exact, proper question. Oh, you’re asking the right question. But the needle goes over, hits the pin, bends; blue smoke comes out of the meter connection, the sensitivity knob becomes incandescent, and you say, “That’s clear,” and go on to the next question. And that’s all that’s happening. Honest. Honest. I plead with you.

Now, I know you think you aren’t doing it. But Fred was telling me in the break up there, he says, “You know,” he said, “I had to practice quite a while in practical, and I’ve suddenly realized I was just not seeing instant reads. And all of a sudden I started to see them.”

There is some kind of an oddball phenomenon that goes this way: Your eyesight shuts off. That’s the only way I can explain it. Now, what shuts off your ruddy eyesight? What shuts it off?

So I had to ask myself this embarrassing question: Did we know what made an auditor turn off when he turned the meter on? Do we know that? And up till last night, we didn’t.

So I had to figure out what happened. Well, of course, I had the data, but I had to assemble it. And so I can give you this cheerful information. You can stop looking as though I have just beaten you, because I haven’t just beaten you. You see, if I hadn’t confidence in you, why, I wouldn’t even try But a few weeks ago I took a look at you all, and I realized that the gray sunken cheek, the thick and muddy eye, the dragging of oneself up the stairs, was not being caused by your late hours or lack of food or anything else, but must somehow or another be caused by the auditing. And r started on a campaign, at that time, to locate what was wrong.

Now, actually I wasn’t trying to look for anything I was just looking to see what was there. This is always a good idea. When you are looking for something, don’t make up your mind, like the psychologist, that you know the something you are looking for before you look. It’s very remarkable. You can look across a whole beach of white pebbles for a white pebble, don’t you see, and never find one, if you’ve already specified that in order to find a white pebble, it has to be black, you see, or something odd like this. No, the thing to do is just to go down to the beach and look, and not even look for a white pebble. Just look and see what’s there.

That’s always very good in research. The Ford Foundation, I think it’s 100 million dollars a month—I think that’s the value of the research as done by the Ford Foundation. About 100 million dollars—oh, well, that’s an exaggeration; it’s actually 100 million dollars worth a minute, because of course they get no place. If the Ford Foundation’s research along these various lines was to be chalked up in value, why, it couldn’t be, you see, because they haven’t gotten anyplace.
Actually, the Ford Foundation was founded at the—exactly the same day (did you know this?) of the first Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for exactly the same purposes: to discover the basics of human life and the mind. It’s fascinating. And there they are. And it’s cost them, since that time, several billion dollars. And they recently, a few years ago, just after they investigated a HASI in Phoenix, Arizona—they sent a representative down, and he gave a report of some kind or another—they wrote a letter to an enquirer that they had ceased to investigate in that particular field. Now, out of that we didn’t know quite what to imply, but we whipped them.

But the idea is that fantastic sums can be spent in research by taking records and compiling records and comparing records to records; and the next thing, when you get through, you’ve got some records. They make nice bonfires; you can toast weenies over them.

But to date, this type of research which does all the lookingness on a via through symbols . . . You know? We’re going to mathematically compute it all. See, we’ve got a white tree in front of us, so we’re going to mathematically compute as to whether or not a white tree can exist. And then we figure out that it can’t, and we walk away. See? And that’s very commonly the fate of research.

Who was it? Hegel or Hume, or . . . Hegel, I think it was. It was some such bird. Somebody or other had up and looked through a telescope and had found the eighth or ninth planet or—eighth planet, that’s it—and somebody like Hegel, I think it was, said, “Couldn’t exist because the perfect number was seven!” And for several years nobody would admit that it existed. All they had to do was train a telescope on it, but it couldn’t exist because the perfect number-was seven. Therefore, there couldn’t be more than seven planets in this system. That’s what’s known as looking at the figures, you see, not looking at anything else.

So all of this kind of thing, I start narrowing it down. Now, the first observation was you didn’t glow, see? I’m always looking, and this one I found. See, you didn’t glow. That was obviously a fact. There was nobody glowing. To prove it: you’re in the basement, aren’t you, here? We’re still using coal. See? That’s enough, see? Proves itself, doesn’t it! So . . . If you want some mathematical computation to go along with it, I’ll just throw that one in, you see?

So from that, I made a couple of assignments. Not necessarily sneakily. I really did just make these assignments. You see? And the assignments I made was (1) I gave an auditor a list of questions—Prepcheck questions to be cleaned on a pc—and I gave another auditor a list of questions that had already been asked, to check over whether or not they were live. The best way to repair a case, you see, on a Prepcheck is to pick up all the questions left alive and clean them. That’s the best thing to do. Ho-ho-ho, ho-ho-ho.

I also got some rudiments checked by your auditing supervisor, and I was coordinating tone arm against out rudiments. And one of the earlier discoveries on this: when the rudiment is out, the tone arm, she don’t move. Important fact. That’s a new fact. If the rudiments are out, no tone arm action. That applies to anything.

All right. I went ahead, then, and you saw the results last night of one of these people I checked out. This is not necessarily derogatory to the auditors who did this. There’s no point in you going out and blowing your brains out, because we’ll just have to pick you up in the next life and clear you again, see? Nobody is being condemnatory on this particular line. But it is indicative of something, and the thing it’s indicative of is somebody wasn’t reading the meter, because I’m absolutely sure—absolutely sure—that the auditor checked those questions but they didn’t read right—something. Something, see?

Now, a further discovery of this: I find out that the auditor believed the meter did not react, and that there was some belief present that TR 1 must be out—that the auditor isn’t delivering the question hard enough, you see, to the pc, or hasn’t enough control over the pc to make the meter register. See, that could enter in, you see? And a lot of other things. You can explain this a dozen ways.
I actually don’t buy any of that. I think the meter reacted and it wasn’t observed. That was just as simple as that. Let’s take the gross auditing error just as a gross auditing error, not a lot of mathematical figure-figure over alongside of the thing. Let’s not try to figure out why, particularly, on that basis. Let’s not say the meter didn’t operate and the pc didn’t operate because look, this has been several widely scattered pcs, which picked up immediately afterwards—one of them by an instructor he could cheerfully strangle (the pc could: that instructor couldn’t possibly have anything with that pc but an ARC break)—and every single one of them reacted.

But we can’t attribute it to some other mechanism except just this: He was a-lookin’ at the meter, and the meter wobbled—the needle went bap!— and the auditor didn’t do a thing about it. The auditor didn’t see it. That’s the only available explanation. Because other people hostile to the pc, in the pc’s estimation, found the meter operating for them.

Do you think it’s easy to sit up in front of that TV camera? It isn’t, man. Not for a pc. Not easy at all. Takes quite a bit as an auditor to hold him in. And you saw those questions falling off the pin, but those questions had just been checked over, and some statement was made that they were mostly clear. Now, afterwards we found out, although they’d been stated mostly clear at first, the auditor said that not all of them were. However, there was one there that the auditor had said was clear that was not clear on my test, see? Well, that wipes it out. The things were reacting, in other words. In other words, something was happening with the meter and it was not observed.

And listen to me! You see me crossing this bridge right now. You’re going to cross this bridge. Hm? There’s hardly a one here that isn’t going to cross this bridge sooner or later. You’re going to stand there speechless, whether in the HGC or an Academy, or with somebody who’s helping you out as an auditor or something of the sort. I don’t care where it’s going to be, you’re going to cross this same barrier, and you’re going to say, “Mrs. Glutz is not doing better. Did you notice the blood dripping out of both her eyes when she left the session today?”

And the auditor will say—whether student or staff auditor or whoever it’ll be, see—will say, “Well yes, but she’s just a very difficult pc. She’s very difficult.” And if you don’t know what to do at that point, you yourself will go figure it all out mathematically.

The thing to do is to get ahold of the pc and take a look at the pc. That’s your first thing. And the pc isn’t better. See? That’s good enough with modern processes. The pc isn’t better. The pc does not look better. Therefore, somebody isn’t reading the meter. Bing, bing—something. You wait! You’ll be on this hot seat. And you’ll get Mrs. Glutz and you’ll put her down in a chair and you will hand her the cans, and you will say, “Well, now, let’s see, now. Now, let me see. You just had a session. Now, in that session did you tell any half-truth? Untruth?” Tone arm action! “Did you try to impress the auditor?” “Did you try to damage anyone?” There’s no sense going on checking it because the tone arm is now at 7.0. And you’ll turn around to this auditor and you will say, “Hey, Mike. Hey, hey, hey, bud. What the hell? What goes on?”

He’ll say, “Well, they were all in when she left the session.”

And you, you idiot, may fall for it. And you’re liable to say, “But then what might it have been? Might it be that his TR 1 is bad? Or actually that the pc is so ARC broke that it doesn’t read on the meter for that auditor? Or is it the fact that they were clear at that moment for him but not for me? Or do they have mutual withholds between themselves which are then coming out because I am checking . . . ?” You know, you can just figure yourself crazy.

Now, this is the one you want to figure: The meter wobbled and the auditor was looking out the window. Don’t figure it any other way, because if you do figure it any other way, you will miss its cure. Thing to cure is not necessarily the auditor’s eyesight.

How can an auditor get in that condition? By invalidating the meter, of course. An auditor can go stone-blind on a meter.

Now, how does this come about? The auditor is audited by an auditor who is stone-blind. Just exactly how do we get this chain reaction, see? He’s sitting there early in his career, minding his own business, and his auditor says to hiIn, “Do you have a present time problem?”

And he thinks, “Oh, my God, if I don’t pay the rent by two o’clock, I’m going to be thrown out,” you see? And he can just feel this thing seethe, you know? And the other auditor—the auditor who’s across from him says, “Thank you. That’s clear.”

“Huh,” he says. “You know, that says that didn’t register.” You understand, he couldn’t see the dial so he doesn’t know whether it doesn’t register or not. He makes the assumption that it didn’t register. “Didn’t register, see? Feels like a present time problem to me. I guess the Ineter is . . . Well, all right. And I’ll just. . .” He just kind of suppresses it and goes through the session gritting his teeth.

Next session: The night before, see, he was on a drinking bout with this guy’s girlfriend, see, or something like that—whatever it was, it doesn’t matter. “Since the last session, have you done anything,” or something like this, “that you’re withholding?” See?

“Oh boy,” he says. “Man, when he gets this . . . I don’t khow whether I can get this withhold off or not. Think . . . Ohooooor. I can just imagine him going out and buying a sound truck and driving up and down the streets, you see, with this particular withhold, because that’s what they always do with hot withholds, you see? Well therefore, at no time will I . . .” you know? “But if I sit here real quietly and don’t breathe at this moment as he asks the question, be all right.”

And the auditor looks at him and says, “That’s clear.”

And the guy says, “ Whooh! boy. That was lucky. Man. Whooh! Got away with that.”

And this happens often enough to a point where a guy gets the idea that meters don’t read. See, all it requires is for one auditor, auditing another auditor, to make one error—be looking elsewhere when the meter bangs. Just requires one of these, and you start this chain going. You think the meter didn’t read. And this is very invalidative to the meter. You think meters don’t read. That’s where that comes in.
 
Well, of course, that happens while you’re in session and you’re kind of non compos mentis at the time or too interested in withholding what you’re withholding or something like that, you see, to go into this thing deeply, and so you close that one out. That’s a total suppression. You forget it, and it lays the most beautiful chain in you ever heard of.

You know it should have read and it didn’t read. Therefore, the meter is no good. But your assumption is the incorrect assumption, so it lasts in space, which is “meter didn’t read.” That is a lie. The meter read. And as any lie, it’ll hang up. And it builds a whole chain up with somebody who is audited this way—builds an enormous chain.

The way you clear that chain is you just prepcheck the question “Has any auditor ever failed to find a meter read on you that you thought should have reacted?” That gets the unknowns out of it because that’s the most likely area of unknown, even though it’s kind of motivatorish. It’s actually neither an overt nor motivator; it’s just hanging in space. But it’s quite unknown because it happened in the middle of the session while the pc was very interested in other things, see? So it’s a quick one.

One of the ways the ancient medicine man operated . . . I actually, at one time or another, have studied in this particular field. I remember about 1930 I was very disgusted; I did some study in North America on the subject of becoming an Indian medicine man. One of the fine ways to go about it is to learn how to scream. And if you can let off a good scream, see, that’s got sawtoothed edges, that is twice as loud as any psycho’s scream, see?—just a good, totalvolume scream—you can stand close to somebody, scream suddenly, utter a command phrase, and then continue your scream. It’ll go in as a total implant. That is a crude and savage way of implanting, but very effective. This is your old medicine man. Make a terrific amount of noise, no noise for a second and utter a command phrase like “You are a pig,” see, interrupt the scream at that point, and then start it again at exactly the same pitch that you stopped it, and go on and finish the scream.

The person who heard this scream is unaware of its ever having been interrupted and after the session will look at you attentively and say, “Oink.” Really will. I mean, this is quite effective—quite effective.

There would be many ways to go about it. You could take a pistol and put somebody in sudden terror and shoot past his face, and then stop shooting for a moment and say something to him, and then shoot the other three shots, you see? He’d never have any idea that you ever said anything. It goes into an unknownness and makes a compulsion.

This is probably how the ancient magician enchanted things. Possibly princes have turned into deer in the forest. If you took a period in the magic universe when thetans were still capable of mocking up their own bodies, and you pulled some shocking stunt on the person and sandwiched them in there that “You are now a deer,” why, he’d cease to mock up the prince and start mocking up a deer, don’t you see, and he would be an enchanted deer. That would be how enchantments were accomplished. I mean, the mechanism of enchantment is no cruder than that.

So when you lay something in like a hellish invalidation of the meter, the person is so involved in their own think-think and worried, you see, about something or other, already very submerged and very withholdy—they get a further withhold on top of the darn thing, just as though they were being screamed at. You see, they’re with . . . “Meter doesn’t work,” and then “Meter doesn’t work.” But they don’t know that. E:xcept they can’t read meters. See how you could do it to somebody?

But actually it wouldn’t be just that motivator that made this thing come true. I’m afraid, for any prince to get enchanted, I’m afraid in the former life when he was a magician, he ran into a prince and committed an overt which was actually a motivator. And I think that’s how it all got mixed up. He did the enchantment and somebody in front of him turned into a deer to hang the guy with his own enchantment. And then, of course, walked around the other side of the tree and became 8 prince again. See, you’d have to haste an incident of that particular kind—the guy commits an overt that he thinks is an overt that is actually a motivator, but he doesn’t know it is—in order to get some such goofiness started.

In other words, a pc is to some degree at an auditor’s mercy. And when an auditor does something weird, makes some evaluative remark, the pc might be fogged up at that kind of an instant, and if it’s too bad—poohie! It isn’t that your auditing, on a long range, is going to do anything, providing you eventually get rid of the person’s GPM. Because all of this hangs up on the GPM. When you eventually blow the GPM, it’ll blow all the rest of it, don’t you see?

So therefore, you have to audit in such a way as to not impede the pc from getting Clear. It isn’t that you can actually hurt a pc, you understand? But the stuff is laying in against the aberrations and the GPM, see? And you got to audit a pc so that the GPM is nor thoroughly restimulated, and so at the other end he goes Clear and the GPM blows to pieces. Got it? And then all the auditing and everything else comes off.

But in the meantime, if you do a rough job of auditing, because the pc is in a rough state, why, of course, you get these implantations inadvertently— quite inadvertent. You have to be careful what you say to a pc who is in session, as you know very well.
Psychiatry, by the way—we find psychiatry hard to understand because the psychiatrist is always doing something on a goal line that we don’t understand. We say we have a goal line. I ask all of you about this: what your private opinion of why you audit a pc is concerned. But it’s uniformly to do something for the pc, help him out, something like that, you see? You all had that idea. Actually, psychiatry doesn’t have that idea in treating a patient. They are not trying to make the patient better or cure insanity or anything like that. They have entirely different goal lines. So you find them incomprehensible.

By the way, in doing a 3GA, all the people who are incomprehensible are the people who would not want your goal. Those are the true incomprehensibles of this universe. You just can’t understand them. And of course, you stop and think of a president of the United States who wants to be a piccolo player, or something like that; you’d have a hard time understanding his foreign policy. You’d think he was being inefficient in running the nation, whereas he knows he’s being efficient in running the nation. He is handing out enormous sums of money to disabled piccolo players, you see, or something like this. So he knows how to mn a nation. He is president so he can go to concerts, see, and that helps out—it’s comprehensible.

This would be the way most nations are run. Supposing, by the way, you got all the heads of state there are in the world that cause all this upset and misery and got them down the line and actually did a Goals Assessment on each one of them. I imagine it would be terribly revelatory. It would be a kick, man. I mean, you wouldn’t believe it. God! The reasons they want to be president or king or commissar, generalissimo . . .

Well, this goal line that the individual has is quite important. He’s trying to get Clear, and things that cross against it are all those things which we classify as auditing errors. You see, he’s apparently being batted back on the subject of his goal. Well actually, smooth auditing is designed not to bat his goal back. See? And that’s the definition of what’s right and wrong in an auditing session. Now, that doesn’t mean specifically we have to know what his goal is or anything else. We just don’t impede him on going forward. See? So the things that impede him we delete from the session.

And we get some incomprehensible, like “Do you have a present time problem?” Yes, the individual does have a present time problem. Oh, my God! you know. It’s an antisocial present time problem, or something of the sort, and he really doesn’t want to fess up to it, and he’s right in the line of having to make a horrible admission of some kind or another, and the auditor says, “That’s clear.”

Well, of course, he wanted to get rid of his present time problem, was his basic goal, and he didn’t get a chance to get rid of it so you’ve gone across his goal line, and you’ve laid one in, and that one that comes in is “The meter doesn’t work.” And he inevitably will make that conclusion at that moment. It’s actually very upsetting if you go back and analyze the thing and go over this. You sit there very upset. You’re saying to yourself, “My God! It’s a good thing I got away with that withhold. Thank God I didn’t have to get off that withhold.” It’s what you’re thinking, kind of analytically, you know? “Whoa, oh boy! would that have been embarrassing. This girl auditor and . . . oh, gee. So happy I didn’t get off—have to get off the withhold, you know? She said it was clear.... I don’t think it was clear.”

Hour and a half later—he’s getting audited all this time, you see—”What the hell was the matter with the E-Meter?” you know? Well, he has to come to the conclusion it didn’t work. See, the conclusion is—automatically, the response is “The E-Meter doesn’t work.” That’s what’s laid in. FIe knows it should react; it didn’t react. So therefore what should react doesn’t react, so therefore it doesn’t react. And there’s quite an upset about that.

I’ve seen this myself. I’ve had an ARC break—something like this—and the auditor wouldn’t register, but I would, on the meter. In other words, I could ask myself the question, “Do I have a present time problem?”—the meter would go plang! you see? And the auditor would ask me, “Do you have a present time problem?”—it would sit there absolutely motionless. It was quite interesting. I’ve actually seen a meter myself, see? Now, with the auditor I said, “Well now, come on now, let’s look at this. Let’s look at this damn thing, you see? Here’s a weird phenomenon.” The auditor asked me the question—no reaction I asked the question—reaction. See, I was holding the cans. Fantastic!

So the meter can be ARC broke out of existence. But even so, the shock in not seeing the meter operate was quite something—a considerable shock involved in that operation. You know? She asked me a question: “Do you have a present time . . . ?”—doesn’t operate. I ask the question “Do I have a present time problem?”—it operates. “What the hell is going on here?” See? I just couldn’t believe it, you know? Just stoney-eyed disbelief. Dahhhh. Already have a good subjective reality on it—quite a shock. Patched up the ARC break, of course the meter operated for the auditor. Wasn’t anything more to it than that.

I even remember the time and date of this, because I studied this a little bit further and then found out that a meter could be inoperative in the process of an ARC break. But you’d have to ARC break the living daylights out of the pc before you got to this phenomena, and I don’t believe we really reached this phenomena.

That meter, by the way, I don’t think was tuned to sensitivity 16. I think it was at a low sensitivity. I think it still would have read, one way or the other. But it was quite a shock to me.

Meter gets invalidated. At the same time the pc is ATAC broke. Now, the next time this person is auditing, it sweeps, it reacts—perhaps minorly because his rudiments are already kind of queasy and the pc is halfway ARC broke. He gets a reaction; he doesn’t believe it when he sees it. You could stack these up to a point where an auditor would simply be stone-blind on the meter. He’d just never see a reaction, that’s all. Or he’d try to explain the reaction, which is the same thing, you see?

You got one going right now which is very laughable. You know all about this, and yet I’ve had a despatch about it, and somebody else has had a despatch about it today. And that is, do you take the reading during the sentence? Ahh, this is just silly! If you ask yourself, what the hell? What is a reading which you get during the sentence? It’s reading on the various words in the sentence, not on the sense of the sentence, so of course you ignore it. There’s a prior read; you ignore it. There’s a latent read; you ignore it. The only read you read is the instant read. Bang! If you don’t get an instant read and you want to be sure, try it again. You saw one last night when I was auditing. You saw a prior read. Now, you didn’t see me buy it. I said, “Well, we’ll check it,” and there it went that time—it fired. But we were getting some kind of a random read. Random needles are apt to read almost anyplace, but they won’t ordinarily read two times running accidentally. Do you see?

Now, you only buy an instant read. Just lay that in with iron, man— instant read. Actually, there is actually no time period at all between the receipt of your question and the response from the reactive mind. If there’s any time period, it is consumed electronically. Might be an electronic lag. I’ve said a half, and a fifth, and a tenth, and I’m just trying to give you an idea of a small amount of time.

I was studying it the other day and I found out it was zero time. It’s actually zero time plus the electronic lag. That electronic lag is pretty darn— pretty darn instantaneous unless your meter is damped. And to your eye, you can’t really detect any lag. That’s the only thing you pay any attention to.

There’s only one other time when you use any other kind of read. You never use a prior read. You never use a late read, except this one. There is one exception, and that is when you’re helping the pc by steering. You’re steering the pc’s thinkingness. You saw me do it last night on a very broad scale, fish and fumble—very, very broad. I was practically sitting there waiting for the needle to hit on something so I could ask the pc what he was thinking about, you see? And then you’ve asked a question, you’ve got an instant read, you’ve asked him what it is, and a moment later you see that instant read repeated, but this time as a needle pattern. You see, you see the same read so you say, “What was that?” see, “What’s that?” and so on. That’s steering. See?

So it doesn’t matter whether you steer it in a fish and fumble—just sit there and wait for the guy to react on something and say “What were you looking at, at that moment,” you see? “That . . . that . . . that.” That’s just steering. It doesn’t matter whether you do it after you’ve got the instant read or without any instant read. You could use a meter in that fashion. It doesn’t tell you anything. You just want to steer the pc’s attention to something. And he, “Oh, well, that. That . . . oh, well, I keep seeing this stuck picture. Uh . . . that’s what that is.” It wouldn’t matter what the “that” was or what his withhold was. It’s just steering. It’s the only time you ever use anything but an instant read.

Your instant read is never prior. It never happens before the end of the sentence. These must be single-clause sentences. It never happens except at the end of the sentence, the end of the word. Now, you can say, “Have you ever damaged anyone?” and get a “you have”—and the person is all ARC broke on havingness, see? “Have,” clink. “You”—do you know, “you” nearly reacts on all pcs?~link. “Damaged,” clank! See? “Someone,” tick.

Oh, you could say to yourself, “Where the hell am I?” Well, just ignore all that earlier stuff, see? Just ignore the lot, see? Just . . . And if you’re not sure, say, “I’ll repeat that. Have you ever damaged someone?” and clang, you’ll get your instant read right on the end of “someone “ It’s right exactly—it’s just as the tail of the e comes up, you’ll get the instant read. Particularly on a second repeat, because you kind of have worn a groove, see? You want to take a question apart—you’ll get “have.” “What about ‘have’?” You’d be a real idiot to do this, see, but “What about.’have’?”

“Oh, I don’t know.”

“Well, what was that?”

“Oh, well, that was the havingness session I had today. The auditor said it was my process because it kept tightening the needle.”

“All right. ‘You.’ All right. What’s that . . . that . . . that . . . that . . . that . . .”

“Well, I don’t know. It must be listing. We keep putting ‘you’ down on the list.”

“All right. Fine. Fine. ‘Damaged.’ Yeah, what’s that . . . that . . . that . . .”

“Well, I don’t know what that is.”

“That. . . that. . .”

“Well, what am I supposed to be answering?”

“Just that. Uh . . . that!”

“But what am I supposed to be answering?”

“Well, just that! That’s all.”

Idiocy reigns, don’t you see? That’s—this is your prior read. Just ignore the basketful, see? To hell with them. Same as latent. You wouldn’t do anything with a latent read; well, don’t do anything with a prior read.

When does a read become prior? Well, I would say anything up to a non-instantaneousness before you ended the sentence. And when does a read become latent? Any non-instantaneousness after you have ended the sentence. I mean it’s just as idiotic as that. I means we’re actually defining a cheese knife, or something like that. Crazy. I mean that, it’s so easy to read that you could keep missing it, you see? You don’t have to compartment the question any more to amount to a hill of beans. Ask it two or three times if you’re not sure what it is. It all of a sudden will straighten out and read.

You see, you’re actually talking to a thought to the reactive bank. Most of you make this fantastic mistake: you think the pc analytically can influence the meter, and he cannot! Absolutely impossible! He can do it on a via by thinking of something that he knows auditors always call on him. See, he remembers a session in which he had a missed withhold that nobody has ever pulled, see? So he could actually go about this kind of a weird one: Every time they ask him about something, he could think of that session, you see, and he’d get a reaction. But there must have been an unknown in the session. See, he could not-know enough about it, you see, so that he’d get a reaction by thinking of something that he knew he didn’t know anything about. He could get a reaction. That’s as close as he can get to it. And do you know, it always has a lag? You know, it will always give you a latent read? Because the guy has to sit there and think about the session, and the time it takes-him to think analytically about the session gives you a latent read.

Now, an instant read can’t ever go through the analytical mind and doesn’t. It Roes strai rht to the reactive mind. stra.ght as a bullet. See, the reactive mind by definition is something that has never been timed, something that is still happening, something that is always now. And its always-nowless deletes all time, and that is why you get an instant read. There’s no time in the reactive mind, which is what is wrong with it. So of course it reads reactively nOlV. And you think the pc knows the answer to what just flicked the needle. Now, look: he can’t move the needle anal) tically, so how the hell could he know it? See, there must be an unknown on anything that goes flick. I don’t care whether it’s a dirty needle or anything else.

Of course, you ask him if he has a present time problem, and he knows he’s got a present time problem; he got reminded Of it, you see, just at that moment. Terrific unknowns in this present time problem. It’s the unknowns that fire. See? If something is not unknown to the pc, it won’t fire, which is the other denominator of the reactive mind. It is a caldron of unknowns which exist in “now” always.

So, you ask the pc something—it’s because you only get a reactive response—the needle will not react. You sit there prepchecking somebody. You could get very impatient about it. But it sure makes the pc think if he sees his auditor getting a little bit—crowding him. And he kind of runs, and he thinks and grinds, and he looks and that sort of thin. The auditor can steer him around and say, What’s that?” Why does the auditor have to steer him? It’s because he doesn’t know what it is.

Try this on a pc someday, if you don’t like him, if you’ve just been given a bad session by him yourself, or something like that; try this on him: “Say, uh . . . have I missed a withhold on you in this session?” And the pc suddenly feels funny because, you see, he feels the surge just as you get, electronically, the surge on the meter, you see? So he feels this surge, and he kind of knows yes, you know?

You say, “Well, what was it?” you know? “What was it?” Don’t help him out. Just sit there.

And he finally says, “Well, I can’t find—I don’t know what it is. Uh . . .” and so forth.

You say, “You know what it is. Tell me.” Don’t help him out. Don’t steer him. You can go on like this for hours.

But the pc is kind of looking around, you know, and you see a flick, you say, “That. . . that.”

He’s looking at a table. He’s looking at a picture of a table. Where the hell did that come from, you know? “Hah-hah-hah . . .”

“That,” the auditor says.

“It’s a picture of a table.” Well, of course, it develops a little bit. He sees a little bit more of it. “Oh, oh, oh, the missed withhold. Oh, oh, oh, yes! I was—that. . .” He recognizes what the table is. It’s the table on which the E-Meter sits. He was thinking that the thing was awfully creaky, and he didn’t say anything about it to the auditor, and it springs to view and all of a sudden you haven’t got a reaction anymore. Why haven’t you got a reaction? Because it’s known.

So the more unknown underpinnings you have on something, the less reaction—I mean, the more reaction you’ve got, you understand? And the less unknown there is there, the less reaction. So magnitude of action . . . I beg your pardon, consistency of action—not really magnitude, but consistency of action—is determined by consistency of unknown and its immediacy in present time, so of course you can get a goal, and the goal will go bang, bang, bang, bang.

Well, you don’t know what the hell the goal is sitting in. That’s how that goal fires. We don’t know the mass that surrounds it. How’s it stay in place? What is all of it? What life did we lead? How come we got into that? You know, all kinds of questions like this. And yet the thing will still fire on the E-Meter. You say the goal—bing. See the goal—bing, bing, bing. Say it every time, bing, bing, bing. You say, ‘what is the goal?” to the pc, and the pc can tell you what the goal is? Of course, that ought to wash out, shouldn’t it? Uh-uh. Bing, bing, bing-bing. That’s why you have to audit them. See, it’s a firing proposition.

All right. Now, this unknownness can get buried in. You can bury unknownness in the middle of an auditing session. You can sandwich it in just like the screaming witch doctor. They got one down in South Africa, yeah— or mostly Central Africa. They walk around . . . Not having seen it in South Africa; they kind of chased it out underneath the brush, I guess. But get a horsetail switch for flies, fill it full of fleas, shake it all over somebody, and while he’s trying to brush them off, say something to him. That’s a version of that. That’s implantation magic.

The Russians, being rather Asiatic, do this consistently and continually. Guy is enroute to a questioning chamber, and a woman dentist with forceps and so forth steps out of a hidden door in the hall and examines his teeth and disappears through the same door. Shatters him! “Where the hell was she from? You know? What is going on?” Typical modern Russian tactic. Boy, these Russians, they go around this way, you know? This was what Pavlov taught them. I don’t think he had to teach them very nard, for some of them.

I notice they made a terrific bid for popularity tonight. Fifteen-year-old boy swam across the river to get into West Berlin tonight, so they put, from the commie side, seven bullets in him. Mobs of people watching this, and they took him to the hospital with a bullet in his lungs and in a critical condition. Their bids for popularity are really marvelous to behold. They probably think it’s the thing to do, you know?

But they do these surprising things. See? They do a sudden surprise in the middle of an action; that makes an implant. Don’t give them credit for being smart on this. It’s probably a dramatization, because they don’t do anything with it. You see?

You, knowing that, figuring out “And let’s see, how could we use this politically? Oh, well, easy. We’ll have this guy—we’ll play some Beethoven, and we’ll have some soft perfume in the room, and lying on a soft couch, and we’ll play some Beethoven, see? And under the table, out of sight, why, we will have the Moscow air-raid-warning siren, the biggest one. And just as he’s all relaxed and listening to this thing, you see, we will press this button, stop pressing the button and say ‘You are a communist,’ and start pressing the button again.” Guy would walk out; he’d tell everybody he was a communist. We’d have done the trick, since a communist is more or less a robot anyhow.

I mean, you could apply these things intelligently. The Russians don’t. You know, it takes them seventy days to brainwash, and they only get 22 percent. Isn’t that interesting? You know, they only get 22 percent? I think this is marvelous, you know? Why do they try? Why do they try?

But this all comes under the heading of that sort of thing. Something that is invalidated secretly or privately—bang, like that—in a guy’s mind. What is it? It’s sort of interesting. You go over this. It’ll make more sense when you get these things checked off, because it wouldn’t take very long to check these things off.

You can go on and check it over, of course, on more of an overt proposition, just talking about getting rid of this meter blindness. “As an auditor, have you ever deliberately ignored a significant meter response?” When I first looked at that question, I thought, “My God!” I just had E-Meters all over in front of my face. I wrote the question down. All of a sudden this morning, I was sitting there looking at E-Meters. And I was willing to swear that I must have done it just every session. For just a moment, just having thought the thought: I must have done this every session, you know? I just must have ignored significant meter responses. So I just sat there, forced myself to remember exactly when they were. They amounted to exactly three.

One of them on you. I said r would take up the rudiments question in the middle of the Prepcheck session. In other words, I said, “Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?” So r said, “We won’t bother with it now because we’re gonna take it . . .”

Another guy I checked out a criminal, and I couldn’t clear it and didn’t believe the meter. And the guy ran away with the crown jewels afterwards—you know, some such comparable action. And an early one, I asked somebody a question, and I got a response—an immediate and direct response on the question—and couldn’t and didn’t follow it up, and never developed it. And boy, was that fraught with havoc.

And there are only three. Think of the thousands of hours I’ve audited. There were three, and they had stacked up enough to give me an automaticity of meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters, meters.... My God, I saw meters going this way and that way. Get the idea? I mean, they had it stacked right in, see?

Of course, the obvious one: “Have you ever invalidated an E-Meter?” And then another obvious one: “As a preclear have you ever successfully persuaded an auditor the meter was wrong?” That’s more hazarding it, but I know there are a few who have. And then: “Have you ever attempted to invalidate a meter read in order to keep something secret?” And I know some pcs have done that, but you notice in each case it says, “or any version thereof, or any version thereof, or any version thereof,” and so forth. So you’d have to fool around with it and get the thing clear.

I don’t mean to invalidate or make you believe that you are going blind and can’t see anymore, or something like that, but the alternative is, is you’re just plain wicked. And you aren’t that either. The mistakes which could be made are you’re just not seeing the meter bang. See? You think that it’s swinging all the time anyway, and you don’t quite see the change of pace. Your eye isn’t educated to seeing the change of pace, that’s all. That would be one.

Another thing: Before you investigate this thing and before you investigate your pc, you’ve already got him so ARC broke that the meter won’t read at all. See, it’s your TR 1 just is not responding on the pc because of the ARC break.

And the other one would be some confusion about what is an instant read. Just what is one? Well, of course, you see one, you see one.

Last night Suzie was calling off for you just any read that came along, naturally. She was giving you read practice, and some of you took it that she was calling them all reads and thought she should have only been calling the instant read. I’ll stop that. Why, she can call just instant reads next time. You will see these things read. It’s the educated eye.

This is the grossest auditing error there is. It is the hardest one to put across. Nobody is trying to make you guilty, particularly. Well, I have got some ways and means by which you can feel easier about it. And I don’t say that all of you are doing it, and I don’t say that all of you are doing it always, but there’s enough of it being done so that those pcs which I have checked out, or had checked out, in the last few weeks have been found to not—they weren’t clean on whatever was being asked. Not only weren’t clean on the meter but weren’t clean physiologically on the questions.

You see, there are other ways to watch . . . You ask a pc a question, and he goes zuuhmm, nyah and uhh and huh-huh and blushes and squirms and . . . Honest, it’s as good as an instant read. You get all those reactions of one kind or another. Of course you add it up.

Observation. Observation: that’s the whole thing. The ability to look. I have always been trying to teach you how to look, here is a direction to look; here is an instrument with which to look. And if I ever will just teach you just to look and to see what you are looking at, without any interference or interpretation or anything else, well, I probably would have made a greater philosophic splash than any philosopher we’ve had on this planet, don’t you see? So this is the toughest one to get anybody to do, is just to observe. That’s the tough one, see? Don’t feel too bad. Just work on it. Get practiced up. All of a sudden you’ll be right in there pitching. Okay?

Remember, once upon a time somebody delivered me a thing, and they said it was an electropsychometer, and Jim and I sat up most of the night trying to find out what it did. And it was actually a week or two before I found out that it read on the needle. So you’re in good company.

Thank you.

E METER DATA: INSTANT READS 
PART II

A lecture given on
24 May 1962

Thank you.

24 May, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, A.D. 12.

All right. Now, you seem to be considerably interested in what meters do, and you seem to be having an awful lot of trouble, one way or the other. I was going to talk to you about Goals Assessments in this particular lecture, but I won’t. I will talk to you definitely about meters.

You know, you can get into more holes full of complication than anybody could easily dig you out of in a long while. You get complicated. And if you just would stop figuring and start looking . . .

I remember when, one time, got a motorcycle off the boat, and I was straightening the motorcycle up and trying to get the thing to function out in Camden, New Jersey. I was trying to get this motorcycle going, so . . . Lights wouldn’t light, you know, and so we kept throwing a switch, and so forth. And it was just at that time this first cliche—first time I had put out this cliche, and so on; it was “Look, don’t think,” see, which was very funny.

And this little Francis-Barnett British motorcycle had a very complicated Lucas light system—headlamp and everything else. And it was very complicated, very hard to get apart. All kinds of wires and condensers, and all sorts of things.

So I started taking it apart, and took the bulb out and took the wires apart and unhooked everything. We had parts that were lying around a good square yard. And then I happened to look down at the battery, and the terminals weren’t connected. We had all the job of putting it all together again. It would have taken about one minute to have put the terminals on the battery.

That was a marvelous example of “Look,-don’t think.” Because I’d sure done a lot of figuring right there on that motorcycle, you see, and the net result was dismantling the works.

You get doing this, and you get to figuring out what this is and the significance of that, and the complications of something else, and so on. And I know what you’re up against, because . . . There’s a textbook called “Dutton’s” which teaches navigation, and it is the textbook used by the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. It’s their key book on the subject. And no doubt about it, it’s a marvelous textbook. There is no doubt whatsoever that “Dutton’s” is just absolutely wonderful as a textbook. Not a single datum of any kind on the subject of navigation that is not to be found in “Dutton’s.” They modernize it, also, every year—it’s marvelous!

You open it up, and sentence by sentence they machine-gun you with exact pertinent data with no amplification or further definition of any kind whatsoever. They don’t bother to tell you it’s a textbook on navigation of ships from here to there. They simply start in telling you “This is the earth and the sun and the planets and the alidade-amplitude angle dihedral in betwixt....”

“A barograph is an instrument used to measure barometric pressure. It is read at two o’clock, four o’clock and eight o’clock.” I don’t know; what do you read? You read its directions? What do you read? You read the manufacturer’s label on the bottom of it? What do you do? Well, “Dutton’s” never bothers to inform you about that. They’re above all that, you see?

Unfortunately I collided—on a restudy of earth navigation—I collided with “Dutton’s” back in the middle thirties, hard, you see? There was everything there but an understanding. See? There was no understanding of what this was all about whatsoever, but there sure were hot data. Man, every datum in it was hot.

But there was never any side amplification, such as “You must always precisely locate the exact position of a battleship.” See? See, it never says, also, that it is sometimes disastrous not to locate the position of a battleship. Your imagination is never invited. It is a dry feast of bare bones. It drove me stark, staring mad. I never learned how to navigate from it.

Finally got a book that—I think Mixter’s Primer of Navigation, or something like this, and read this book, and it didn’t treat it very seriously, and it was very happy about the whole thing, and I dug up a few data from that.

Actually, though, I thought it would be easier to go back and evolve the whole thing, so I did. Some time in ‘44 an admiral was walking around on the bridge, and I was calculating something or other, and he says, “Well, I see,” he says, “that you—how is this?” He’d just flown in, you know, from stateside. He wouldn’t be there long because it wasn’t very safe where we were. And he said, “I see”—he said—”But—but how is this? You’re using Commander Weems’ new textbook on aerial navigation.” And it puzzled him because it was just now in print in the States, and we couldn’t possibly have connected that fast. No, r had accidentally evolved it as a simple method of navigation, and somebody else had evolved it. That was all. But it didn’t come from “Dutton’s,” but I imagine it’s now part of “Dutton’s.” And I imagine nobody can savvy it now. I mean, I imagine that’s totally, totally lost.

But this is a method of losing information, is you just give a bunch of machine-gun data and expect everybody to hew the mark on that exact data, and it’s never amplified, you see? So we have lots of examples of that particular character.

It is the importance of a datum that must be weighted. Weighted. You weight the importance of a datum. And you are so accustomed on this planet— you are terribly accustomed—to studying unweighted data.

Somebody opens up Krishnamurti, and he shows you three places in this book of Krishnamurti’s whereby it’s exactly parallel to exactly what we say in Scientology, so therefore Krishnamurti is Scientology. And poor old Peggy Conway—I showed her one day that these were totally unweighted data. They had no importance assigned to them whatsoever, but were there with equal importance with about three or four thousand other datum. These other data were all there of equal importance, and they were—some of them were really wild data. See” So they were all equally important. in other words, there was no selection of importances.

And people keep forgetting this. They think all data are equal, and it’s as big a mistake as to consider all people are equal or anything else is all equal. Because it’s pretty hard to get an equality. Mathematically it’s impossible to get an equality. You take an apple out here off a tree, and if you had another apple which is exactly the same size, shape, age, skin thickness, pattern of the skin, everything else, you’d say, “Well, that apple is equal to that apple.” No, they’re not equal. They’re not occupying the same space. How could they be equal? All the characteristics of one apple would have to be equal to all the characteristics of the other apple, and they’re both occupying different positions in space, so they can’t possibly be equal.

Now, in order to study . . . I’ve heard this phrase “learn how to study.” I’ve had it thrown at me in very fine universities, very fine schools, and so on. “Learn how to study,” they say, and then they sit back. We should remember this: that there are several ways of laying out data. One is to lay it all out with equal weight with no amplification, no other explanation, nothing to assist understanding; we just machine-gun out a whole bunch of data—brrrr, see? That’s supposed to be real good. Your technical-scientific writer of today is educated to do this and sometimes criticizes the writings of Dianetics and Scientology because it doesn’t do only this.

All right. Now, there’s another way of handling this stuff, and that is to throw it all out with tremendous obfuscations. You sort of interlard it with “Of course, you boob, you couldn’t understand this anyway because it’s all so complicated.” And they do that in various ways. With footnotes: “Refer to Jervis Crack, page 39,” you see? Of course, that book hasn’t been available for the last century. So you’ve had it, you see? Well, what they’re doing is doing a priesthood type of action. And most of the professors writing in modern university, and so on, are guilty of that. They’re trying to create a priesthood.

Now, the reason navigation sprung to mind, and the reason I talk about navigation, is they’re exclusively devoted—not this “Dutton”; it’s of another kind—but the navigator himself is devoted to the development of a priesthood. It is not for nothing that the early navigators of the South Pacific were a priesthood. And they were the reigning priesthood of Polynesia. Well, those birds, with a hole in a coconut shell and that sort of thing, navigated themselves all over the place. Quite interesting how they did it, but it was a priesthood. And they surround this with a bunch of magic, and they surround it with a bunch of nonsense of one kind or another. Well, a chemistry professor is just as guilty. He gives you a whole bunch of nonsense.

But the reason a navigator springs to mind: if you were to go on a bridge of a naval vessel that had a navigator and to ask him how he was finding his position . . . He won’t have you shot because that’s illegal. Instead of that, he will either ignore you with a contemptuous sniff or utterly overwhelm you with a bunch of irrelevant bunk. That man is totally dedicated to the protection of a cult. Navigation is what makes him important, and if every fool knew how to navigate he wouldn’t be important anymore. And that’d be that.

The textbook “Bowditch” on this subject... I’m choosing an esoteric field—navigation—not that you’re interested at all in navigation but just because it’s far enough afield that it won’t confuse the issue.

Bowditch was a fellow up in the New England states who decided that celestial navigation should be decelestialized. So he did a bunch of tables and things of this character, and he went out on a China trip; and out of his little manual, which was about quarter of an inch thick, he taught even the cook to navigate by star sights. It was marvelous. He taught everybody on the ship. He was teaching everybody up and down the New England coast how to navigate out of this little, tiny book.

You should see that book today! Ha-ha-ha! It’s also published by the United States Navy, and it is that thick, it’s that high and it’s that broad. It’s the most marvelous thing for keeping a passageway door open you ever saw.

But it has everything in it that has nothing to do with navigation, and it has tables developed which nobody has used for ages. And his original tables, I don’t think, are even in it anymore. And yet it’s called “Bowditch.”

See, the whole thing has been obfuscated. Whole thing has been masked.
 
That is the way somebody swells up his importance. He makes himself very important: He’s one of the twelve men in the world that can understand Einstein. Oh, I don’t know. If there was anything there to understand, I think that more than twelve men could have understood Einstein. I took one of the twelve men in the world who could understand Einstein, and I went around to him to have him explain it to me, as the associate editor of the college paper, in a short article. (I was making friends in those days.) I wanted him to give me a short article for this college paper so that I could explain Einstein to the student body. He was very insulted. He was very upset, but his—I wrote an article.

But years afterwards, I was talking to a friend, and he was a pretty good scientist. He was good enough to be kicked out of the government; he was one of the sixty-four that were released for doing their duty. And he said, “Theory of relativity? Well, let’s see. Mass equals MC2 well, let’s see if we can’t do . . . I wonder if it couldn’t be explained rather simply.”

And so we boiled it down and told it to a kid, and he understood it perfectly. There wasn’t much to this. Except what? The vast importance of the person. See? Somebody is using this as a cloak of rare bird feathers, you see, so he can stand before the idol and tell everybody how important he is, see?

Well, these methods of communication of thought, methods of communication of data . . .

Now, we’re in an interestingly peculiar field, because the data that is being communicated is in actual fact totally new data that everybody already has. That makes it very peculiar data indeed. Now, there’s no language that embraces this because language comes after the fact—before the fact, rather— of the data. And so you get a few terms mixed up in it. It’s nothing compared to medical terms or other fields. Nevertheless, it has the frailty of having new terms. But you have to have new terms, otherwise everything you described would be a whole package.

I could probably dream up an example and say, “Well, the combined impulses derived from force and duress in the past which have become forgotten but which are capable of impinging themselves upon the individual . . .” Wouldn’t you like to say that every time you said “reactive mind”? That would be pretty grim, wouldn’t it?

So naturally, you get conversant with this, you start developing a bit of a shorthand. But the shorthand mustn’t itself be terribly obscure, and most of our stuff is not obscure. We don’t invent words where we don’t need them, but we do invent words where we shouldn’t be confused.

Now, we lack a complete dictionary. That we should have—there’s no doubt about that—so that you could look up any phrase and understand it better. We’ve been in the throes of making up a dictionary for years. I had the notes on my desk recently—just a few days ago—to start recompiling the thing.

Trouble is, it’s costly. That’s the only thing that’s wrong with a dictionary. You’d have to put two or three people on it for several months to really knock a dictionary together, because you’d have to listen to every tape on which every word had ever been defined at any time and put all the definitions down for a single word immediately following it, and then that would be a worthwhile dictionary. Would also he quite a worthwhile textbook.

But it happens to be a labor. It’s mostly labor: listening to tapes, taking down every definition; looking up all the textbooks, taking down every definition, you know; writing each word on a piece of paper, and then writing each definition that has ever been defined for it, because they’ve been defined several times.
 
Well, we—that is a barrier. There is no doubt about that. But. what 1 try to do, the way I try to teach you this, is teach you one very simply and try to give you the weight of the datum—you know, how heavily this is weighted in comparison to other data, see?

I tell you, “This one is important,” see? And then because there are quite a few important datum, I very often make the mistake of not saying to you that there’s a lot of data along this line that’s not important, see—that don’t amount to anything; they’re merely interesting. Well, I tell you that—even that too, occasionally. That’s an awful lot of bric-a-brac and phenomena.

Well, what happens is that I give you a datum that’s important, and you very often pick up a piece of bric-a-brac that’s right next door to it that is interesting, see, and you get the two things confused. You know, this other one is fascinating. There’s no doubt about it. You start fooling around with things in the mind and there are fascinating things. The floor of the ‘ead is strewn with them, man. I don’t know how you can live in there.

See? There are many fascinating data—they are terribly, terribly interesting. Why, if I sat down and wrote everything I knew about needle phenomena or phenomena which could be disclosed by a meter, my God, it’d be something on the order of four or five million words! I know tremendous lot of oddities —fantastic things that you can do—all of which amount to a hill of beans. They’re just of no importance at all. Amongst all of that, there are only a few important data and they are boiled down into that savagely condensed book E-Meter Essentials.

Now, that is an example, by the way, of a terrific boildown. The instant read, however, is not described in that book. It is now described in the second edition, but in the original edition it’s not described.

Now, obviously, it should also be part of my responsibility to tell you what’s not important. But look, but look: that’s four or five million words, see, compared to a few hundred. That would be a job, man!

And you want to know about teaching you some of this stuff . . . What is utterly, staggeringly fantastic, you see, is trying to guess what you’re going to do wrong next. And I tell you, man, that would keep somebody awake all night if he really worried. You know? I worry about it enough. But trying to guess which way the mistake is going to go . . . Because, you see, it can go into any of those unimportant channels. See? And they’re just infinite in number.

Now, right now you’re riding the hobbyhorse of the interim read; the prior and interim read, because the word latent read is forbidden, you see—I mean, the subject of latent reads we’re not interested in. I’ve omitted saying that there’s such a thing as a prior read, see? Well, it is also forbidden. See? A prior read is as bad as a latent read. You only want an instant read.

But what is an instant read? It is that read which takes place immediately after the expressed thought. Now, if you sum that up as a definition, you will see that it precludes—that it is thoughts that impinge, not words, on the reactive mind. It’s thought, not words. You may express them in words, but they impinge in thought. The reactive mind doesn’t actually react to words. The words translate through symbolism into thought, you see? You got the symbols of the words, and then that melts down into thought. The reactive mind responds to the thought impulse. So you can have a lot of thought impulses in one thought.

“Have you seen any gorgeous, good-looking, luscious, marvelous, sensational women lately?” How many reads would you get? Man, that’s up to you and the gods.

Now, because you are thinking the thought, and if you read this as a straight thought through, the reactive bank, at first—only at first—will impinge on every thought contained in the major thought. So you get a whole bunch of prior reads. And then it finally grooves in that this is what you’re talking about, see?

The major thought is “Have you seen any women lately?” see? “Have you seen any gorgeous, beautiful, luscious, you know, women lately?” That’s the big thought. And it’ll register as “Have you seen any beautiful women lately?” as well as “you” and “seen” and “gorgeous” and . . . Get the idea?

Well, the funny part of it is, is you can groove in the major thought or the minor thought. “Have—you—seen . . .” See? You’re going to get reactions by this time. That’s a sort of a punctuated reading of something. You’re going to get action, action, action, action, and then action on the thought.

Well, you saw an example in the demonstration I gave you last night of a prior read, and I threw it away and asked the pc again because I couldn’t tell if it was a read or not a read. I just threw it away. I didn’t pay any attention to it. It was the one time in the session when that occurred, that something fell on the middle of the last word. Obviously invalid, but it showed that it might have been instant; it all depended. So I just checked it again. But that only happened—in a whole hour of session, only happened once. See how rare that was?

Now, you got the packaged thought. Now, if you repeat that thought through to the pc, you have restimulated the thought majeure, see—not the thought mineure, the thought majeure. We could have a lot of fun if we were really, fish-end tails, white tie, you know, type of subject treatment, you know, on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology, you know? And you would be learning about the thought majeure, you see, and the thought mineure. Oh yeah, we could be fancy. Don’t let me kid you.

Actually the trick of communicating the whole subject of the human mind with as few words—new words—as we use is quite a trick. That is actually one of the big things that we got, you know? We don’t have to go four years to study Latin so that we can abuse it.

No, the thought “You seen any beautiful women lately?” is inherent in your statement, and so most of the time you simply read it—and “you” almost always will get a reaction, by the way, and so on—whatever it is.

All of your interim spots may get a reaction, but you’re only interested in the reaction which occurs with the last word—the end of the last word. It’s not after you stop speaking, it’s when the whole thought is completed.

Therefore, you’d never use more than one clause, but you can even get away with using several clauses and still get a reaction—lot of phrases and clauses, and so forth.

But it may take you two, three or four reads to ring it in. That is one of the reasons you read a goal three times: it might fall interimly, might fall randomly. But you want to get the thought expressed. The thought has got to be expressed through to the pc. So you could never read it really successfully less than three times aloud to get the whole thought, that’s all. The whole thought delivers through.

Most of the time, oddly enough, the whole thought does deliver through and react. But just that once in the hour’s session, you see—well, we got some other interim reads, but only one interim read came so close to the end that a fellow could have made a mistake. Indistinguishably close, halfway through the last word.

Well now, the point is this, is the pc’s thinkingness isn’t turning on the read. It’s the pc’s reactingness which is reading. So there’s no understandingness of any kind consulted on an E-Meter read. It is all stimulus-response. There is no understanding of any kind. It’s as though the reactive bank can listen and react. Oddly enough, it can.

It is the auditor to the reactive bank, not the auditor to the analytical mind to the reactive bank. That always gives you a latent. read. You got an instantaneous proposition here. Doesn’t matter how mysterious it is or isn’t. It’s just, you’ve just got an instantaneous proposition. It’s, you read the thought, and it reacts in the reactive mind. And honest, the pc can be doped off, nine-tenths unconscious, goofed off, everything else, and it will still read. I’ve seen a pc sitting there practically snoring and everything reading. I made several tests on this. I was flabbergasted! You could have said to him, “Women, women, women.” You got react, react, react, see, just this nice pang! pang! pang!—three instant reads, nice strong ones. And you could have said, “What did I say?” And he’d say, “(snort) What? What’s this? What? I don’t know. What did you say?” He didn’t know, either. See how crazy that is?

Until you actually explore that, it still looks to you as though you say something, the pc analytically hears you and then reacts to what you said, and it is not that cycle at all. That is not the cycle which takes place. I don’t care to elucidate even what cycle takes place rather than invent knowledge, but that cycle does rat take place. See, I can tell you which one doesn’t take place.

You say it and he reacts. What reacts? Reactive mind. And that’s got to contain timelessness and not-knowingness in order to get a reaction. If you don’t have timelessness and not-knowingness, you don’t get a reaction on the meter. It’s as simple as that. If he thinks of something in order to get a reaction, you always get a latent read; you don’t get an instant read.

Oh, you want black magic? There it is. The reactive mind of most people is black enough. Look at the GPM sometime.

But of course, you have all of your latent reactive thinkingnesses of former identities are stacked up there like Genghis Khan’s pyramid of skulls. There’s plenty of them. And all of that combined thinkingness and reactingness and so forth has amounted to a GPM. So it’d be wonderful and marvelous that it didn’t respond. But remember it—it, I said. It, not the pc.

Actually, this is technically incorrect: “How did the pc respond on the meter?” The pc never responded on the meter! It did. It did. And when it responded, it did it instantaneously, exactly, peculiarly, at the end of the thought majeure.

I’ll hang you with one just so you can feel upstage. So if you’re at some party sometime where there’s nothing but professors, you could say, “Well, we mostly deal in the thought majeure.”

But there is this weirdity. Now frankly, you think sound travels at eleven hundred feet per second, and so forth, and such. And undoubtedly there are lags developed in here because of sound, and so forth, but remember, I don’t know that. See, this is to some degree an invented piece of knowledge.

And we could calculate it out and say that the auditor’s length of time to pour out to the end, plus the length of time of his voice impulse to the pc’s ears, plus the length of time to the reactive bank, plus the time consumed in restimulating the electrical responses of the reactive mind, plus the lag of the E-Meter would be how long it took for the read to read instantly.

Now, I don’t know, maybe we could sit on one mountain top and have an E-Meter lead from Mont Blanc over to Mt. Punk, or something of the sort. And we yodeldeehoo, you see, across and ask some restimulative question and see how long it takes, and measure the electrical current and measure the amount of time in the air; and maybe we could do a lot of things like this and maybe we could learn a great deal. And I’m sure if some professor liked to mountain climb, he would spend the rest of his life establishing that fact. However, we’re more interested in the subject majeure rather than the subject mineure. Anyway.

So, the main thing we’re interested in is the thing reacts instantly, and it reacts instantly at the end of the thought. And, of course, it will react to interim thoughts. You say, “Have you, you swine, damaged any pigs lately in this session?” See? Well, now you’re throwing yourself a curve if you add “in this session” because it’s a clause after the thought. The modifying clause coming after the thought fumbles the whole thing up. So you should say, “In this session,” and then you should drop the interjection “you swine,” and you say, “In this session, have you damaged any pigs?”

Now, this is the liability of reading a meter. Supposing the pc has an item called pigs. Now you’ll get into one of the world’s most marvelous tangles, because it’s reacting on the word “pigs,” and you don’t know whether it’s acting on the thought majeure or the thought mineure. You don’t know which is which. And that’s the only time you can really get tangled up.

Say the pc’s goal: “to catch catfish.” And you’re trying to test out the way to list it. Now, “Want to catch catfish,” you know, “Who or what would not want to catch catfish?” “Who or what would not oppose catching catfish?” “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” will all react on an instant read just like the goal, won’t they? Isn’t that horrible? That’s very confusing, because then you can’t tell which is the right phrasing to line up on unless you read them two or three times to groove it home, at which time, oddly enough, the goal will no longer react as the goal but will only react as a thought majeure. And that’s a little test that you ought to make just to convince yourself, show yourself what it is.

Take some highly restimulative interimly-worded sentence—I don’t care what it is—that as a major thought adds up to a whole, that you know would be hot on the pc. He’s got some old item that’s still in, see? Some kind like this. Put that on the end. And then you will see, after you have read it about three times, that it only acts on the thought majeure and will not act on that item. But the item will act separately.

You can take the item out of the sentence. Even though it occurs to the end of the sentence, you can take it out of—it’s just marvelous, you know?— and you can set it out there all by itself, and you say, “Pigs, pigs.” First time, it doesn’t react; it’s cautious, see? “Pig.” Now you say, “Pigs, pigs, pigs, pigs.” After that, “Pigs, pigs, pigs, pigs, pigs.”

You put it back in the thought majeure: “In this session, have you injured any pigs?” No read. This is mysterious, man. Of course, it might read the first time as just an additional “pig,” but then groove it in again—groove it in again. “In this session, have you injured any pigs?” No, it won’t react. Mysterious!

Now, the mysteriousness of it is, is below the unknowingness there is a terrific power of retention in the reactive bank. It is another one of its characteristics. It has fantastic continuity, fantastic survival. Otherwise it wouldn’t be here. And what is put into it then acquires this characteristic of fantastic survival. So you have time, not-knowingness and survival. So what you pour into it will continue to react.

The delicacy of its operation is another astounding thing. If the goal is “to injure pigs”—that’s the actual goal—and the wording which you have on the list is “to injure a pig,” at first “to injure a pig” will react and will then cease to react, and will react and it’ll splutter and monkey around, and you won’t quite know what you’re doing on the thing, and all of a sudden the pc—you can never change it for the pc—the pc is liable to say, “Oh, well, that’s—that . . . that’s to injure pigs.” Pang! It’s a marvelous precision. This is an old study in Dianetics, is the fantastic precision with which this thing will do it. “To injure pigs,” that’s fine. it’ll react from there on out. See? But “To injure a pig”—sporadic, not in.

Don’t also think that total retention is total wisdom. It isn’t. So you get this kind of a circumstance where if you’re a tiny bit offbeat you won’t get the reaction.
 
Now, oddly enough, you can get a generalized thought which is close enough in to get the reaction, and that’s where you get your What questions from. That’s why you actually ought to fish for your What question. “What about wrecking cars? What about stealing and wrecking cars?” The pc unfortunately used the word “swiping cars,” and you’re trying to get on “stealing cars,” and my God, you never get a What question.

Last night we had a word. If I’d used any other word than that exact What question, if I hadn’t used the word conned, it wouldn’t have reacted. The pc said it so that must be at the base of the chain of the overt. Your clue must be taken from the pc.

Now, you can play ducks and drakes with this thing. You can throw it all over the place, and so forth, as long as a central pin stays there to hook in and identify. You got to have something that will identify. You got to have a thought that associates, and so on.

Well, you’re doing an interesting thing. You’re taking the whole of an overt act, which was all in terms of action anyhow, and you’re putting it in terms of English, which it might not even have occurred in, and that thought embraces the action which took place which was the overt. Oh, my God! Nobody would be able to build a machine that did it. That would be utterly incredible. And yet the reactive mind can do that much of a stretch.

But “What about stealing a lot of cars? What about stealing cars? What about stealing and wrecking cars?” Bang! On another instance the pc said, “Well, I swiped a—a scooter.” And you say to him, “What about stealing children’s toys?” You know? BBC, you know, type of response. Nothing happens. See, you have to sound out your What question.

Now, you can alter it this far: “What about swiping toys?” That’ll be dead on. That’s okay.

But you altered the doingness, you see? And the thought of the doingness shifted. You have to keep that pretty well the same, don’t you see? And you have to have at least some associated object, to make this thing react, but it will react every time.

The odd part of it is, why does it react after “toys”? Why does it go “toys,” see—”toys” click. Why? It’s the total thought. All I can tell you is it does. And if you have a question which reads “What (tick) about (dirty needle) stealing (tick) toys? (fall),” you ignore everything but the fall. You don’t do another blessed thing with a prior read. You just skip the lot. If it doesn’t fall at the instant you said “ s.. .” See, “toys,” “toys” (fall). If it falls at “t—” (fall), it’s not an instant read.

Don’t tell me why the reactive mind does this. I couldn’t care less. Just take it from me that it does. Then it cleans up and everything squares up and the pc feels better and it falls apart. It’s almost as if it’s drawn itself a complete plan of “how you take me apart.” Most fantastic thing. All you had to know about the whole thing from beginning to end was exactly—you had to be able to look and observe.

Interim reads are so common that if you tried to pay any attention to an interim read on “Have you tried to damage—in this session, have you tried to damage anyone?” Suppose you’re asking such a question, and it fell on “damage”—you knucklehead! The worst you could do—you saw me do it one time on an earlier session; I wrote “damage” over in the margin. I knew it would be a hot Prepcheck question, but ignored it for that because it didn’t fall on “anyone—.” See? It’s just a curve of the e and then the action. See, “In this session, have you tried to damage anyone”—uhp! There it goes, right on that e, see? Not earlier, not later, but right on. Marvelous. Why it works this way, God knows.

You know, I think even people with the big-thetan theory would—would doubt—would doubt it. It’s too incredible. But that is the fact. And you’ll find out this pans out every time. You find out if you clean off that instant read at the end of the thought major, you’ll be all set. And if you start monkeying around with the interim reads of the thought minors, you are going to fall on your ‘ead every time.

Now, you very often will get into severe trouble putting together goals. “To go out and pick potatoes and sometimes have a girl in the potato patch.” Man! And it falls on “to go out,” and it falls on “and pick potatoes” and “to have a girl,” and it falls on “potato patch.” And there’s no instant read after “patch.” After you’ve said it three times, there is no instant read after “patch.” Well, I’d say it has something to do with the goal, probably, in some version or form or another, as it will eventually arise. And I’d get all the invalidations and the missed withholds and suppressions off of listing.

That’s another one I should take up with you. I’ll take it up with you right now. When I say “listing,” I don’t mean items. When I say “Take it off the subject of listing,” I don’t mean take it off the items of listing. When I say “listing,” I just mean listing. You say, “Is there any missed withhold on listing?” See? “Have you suppressed listing?” “Have you invalidated listing?” “Have you ever committed an overt with listing?” That’s the way you phrase it, see? That’s listing. Listing. It is a subject. You could even say “goals listing.” And when I tell you “items” or “individual items,” why, then, I mean a goal or an item or a straight line.

“Is there any item on this list which has been invalidated? Thank you. Is there any item on this list on which there is a missed withhold?” Too complicated a phraseology, you can’t get across the thought majeure easily, so you say, “Is there any item on this list which has been invalidated?” Say it the second time. And you get your click. Marvelous to behold; you’ll get your click, and you clean that click off.

There is the subject of listing, and then there’s the subject of goals, there’s the subject of items in general; all of these things are different things that you can do things with, you understand?

Now, in this rundown of the goal, if you don’t get your instant read on the end of the goal by the third time you’ve read it, it ain’t it. And you certainly better ignore it. But very possibly—not positively at all, but very possibly— potatoes have something to do with this goal, or maybe it’s girls have something to do with the goal. Of course, we can’t guess.

Now, I’ve even gone so far, experimentally, as to try to pick out all of the various words that have reacted and put a goal together for the pc. Doesn’t work. Evaluates for the pc and throws the whole thing into that. The pc will give it to you eventually. You get all the withholds off the subject of listing, all the withholds off the subject of auditing, all the withholds off the subject of items, goals, that sort of thing, any overts that might have occurred in this direction—just explore around, get them all over—and all of a sudden you say, “Well, are there any more goals?”

“Oh, yap, yap, yap, yap, and yap, yap, yap and yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, ‘To lay girls in the open.’”

All right. You’re nulling on down. There was your potato patch. See? Only this one will go “open” (bang!), “open” (bang!), “open” (hang!). You see your read? instant read, instant read, instant read every time.

It does not matter how many reads you get that are prior to the instant read. You ignore them. Please believe me. You just ignore them. it does not matter how many reads you get after the instant read. Ignore them. But you must put across your thought majeure to the pc. And if you got the thing all participially occluded, why, prepare to stand there for several reads before it’ll finally embrace.
 
But oddly enough, no matter how complicated it is—I don’t know, I think you could probably get a fall on Uncle Tom s Cabin where it says “The End”; you get your instant read, you know? But you would have had to have read it to the reactive mind fifty or sixty times, and I don’t think anybody could stand that.

So, that stable datum—get used to that stable datum, live with it, and you won’t have any trouble on the thing. And God almighty, never ignore one. Teowuwtsw! Never ignore one.

On the subject of rudiments, middle rudiments, something like that: “A little while ago when I was talking to you about that goal, did you get an ARC break?” And it goes zumph-zzm—ARC break, goal—zzzm-zzzumph, you know? “A little while ago when I was talking to you about that goal, did you get an ARC break?” Now you’ll notice there’s less randomness in it. “A little while ago when I was talking to you about that goal, did you get an ARC break?” Clank! You put the thought majeure across, and it now is impinged, and it will react. But why did it take so long? That’s because it’s so complicated.

You would have gotten your instant read like this: “In this session, have you had an ARC break?” Clank! See? Simple: fast. Complicated: takes you a while. A complicated thought majeure takes a lot of pounding before it is finally embraced and will give you an instant read.

Now, you say, “In this session, have you told a half-truth? Untruth?” see? That package question possibly leads you astray, because there you are using a packaged bunch of instant reads. Actually, you’re shorthanding “In this session have you told a half-truth? In this session have you told an untruth? In this session have you tried to impress me? In this session have you tried to damage anyone?” See? Oddly enough, you could package the whole thing together and use the interim reads. Oddly enough, only that one will go down; particularly after the third or fourth or fifth session with the pc, because the reactive bank is now grooved into that thought majeure. They’re very obliging. A pc who is under control really responds.

This is all rather incredible. Why does the reactive mind react? Why does the E-Meter work? Well, I won’t be so stupid as to try to force on you the same orders that the six hundred had at Balaklava. (Which is some sort of musical instrument they didn’t play well!) There’s this type of think about this: I could say to you, the instructors could say, everybody could say to you, “Now, look! When it gets an instant read, read it! Now, you don’t have to understand it. Just—when it gets an instant read, read it that way. That—that’s it!” See?

And you say, “Yeah, but why does it read that way?” see, and so forth. You’ve got a perfect right to ask that question, see? Got a perfect right. Why does it only give an instant read? And why can you groove in a thought majeure? And why does it sometimes read on the thought mineure? See? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Like little Arthur says, see? You’ve got a perfect right to say that.

And I got a perfect right to tell you “I don’t know!” It just does! This is a whole set of fortuitous accidents based on direct lookingness and on no figureness. There’s very little think involved with this thing, you see?

The E-Meter itself, I think, was a Decca voltmeter which a guy held both sides of, and it reacted, in its most primitive state. I think it was Richard Saunders at Elizabeth, New Jersey, was monkeying around with this. He wanted to show doctors that there was a response, and he knew they would look at meters. So he pinched the living daylights out of a pc, you know—made him black and blue, you know—while they were holding on to this thing, and then told him to recall it and got the same response on the meter.

Well, fortunately today we’re not dealing with that level of insensitivity on the subject of meters, because think of how you’d look at the end of session.
 
But this was picked up one way or the other or independently gone at by Mathison. I gave a lecture, described what kind of an instrument we really had to have. Mathison went home and he breadboarded one up. It functioned remarkably well for its original state. It was very limited. Pcs went off the top of it and went off the bottom of it with the greatest of ease. I think they possibly still do on Mathison’s.

But anyway, time went on and around Washington, why, I eventually thought it would be a good thing to have this one, and Don Breeding and the rest of the boys got scratching their head over this thing, and old Joe Wallace, and so on. And they kept hanging things together.

And then they’d do a perfect one, you know, and then they’d scrap it because they could do one that, you know, behaved electronically better, you know? And I’d take a pistol out of my desk and hold it on them and make them build the first plan.

And then they’d put fifty on the line or twenty-five on the line, or something like that, and come back and tell me that if they just eliminated the ruddy rod and put a couple of condensers there that it’d work much better. And I’d say, “No, you don’t. You build the original one,” see?

And they built some of these other ones, and they responded perfectly electronically, but they did not respond mentally. This meter responds mentally. Anybody alters that meter, it’s practically over our dead body because it’s just empirically worked out. It’s marvelous that it works at all.

But, do you know, people give you explanations for the working and for the circuit and for this and that about this thing. They’re talking in their hats. They’re talking through their hats. They can give you all of the stuff, and so forth, but that stuff all got assembled in there on the basis of just breadboarding something.

Now we’ve developed theories as to how this thing works. Now we’ve developed all kinds of things. There’s a magnetic thing in here that swings that.... We’re dependent on James Watt, Edison, all the modern electronics guys, transistors, everybody else, on all of their know-how, but this hung together makes an E-Meter. Why? I don’t know.

We’ve got a doctor’s meter. Costs several times what one of these things cost. Reg got me one.

We played around with that thing. It doesn’t work. We don’t know what it does, but it does something else. The needle goes by so fast, you can’t even see it go. We’ve learned exactly nothing from it, which I think is marvelous, except this one fact—you all knew that—that’s doctors are frauds. But we have an example of this: they’ve tried to copy our E-Meter, and they just haven’t gone anywhere with it. They couldn’t tell anything with this thing. It’s marvelous! And we got it, and I’m glad to have it! It’s not a wasted instrument. There is the peak of medical electronics.

Now, why does it work? Why does the reactive mind do this?

What you figuring for? For God’s sakes, the thing is laid out on a red carpet. This is how it works, this is how it reacts and this is how you use it. Oddly enough, it’s invariable—utterly invariable.

Now, one of these days you’re going to get Clear, you’re going to get very bright, you’re going to figure out exactly why an E-Meter responds this way, exactly what wavelengths the thetan operates on in order to put a reactivity together, exactly how many condensers fit together amongst the ruddy rods. You understand? And how you can all do it on thought transference and set up an EC-Meter on a table and read President Coolidge’s reasons why he wouldn’t run, you see? Read through time.

Yes, by all means get in that shape! Yes, by all means get that design. When you do, write me a letter. I’ll publish it.
 
There’s more phenomena around this subject—not just this meter—than you could easily count up on an IBM Comptometer, and there’s an awful lot of particles in one of those.

Now, where do we got the figure? Where’s the think?

Reg’s engineer, who is a sharp apple—you see him around here once in a while—he has a hard time with this, man. It violates all of his principles of electricity and the body and everything else. This thing is a ghost instrument. He concluded the other day that, well, there’s nothing else to register there but thinkingness, or what did it? or how did it? or something.

It wasn’t that he was baffled that this reacted against the mind, because that’s rather common.

He’s baffled about other things. He always thought it worked on the amount of sweat, and then he suddenly realized that you can’t sweat and unsweat that fast. So there must be something else involved here, and a lot of things. But you walk up to most guys and they’ll tell you it’s sweat—measures sweat. All right. Good. Measures sweat. I don’t know what that’s got to do with it either. It doesn’t measure sweat. It measures think.

But there’s a lot of boys can put these meters together that don’t measure think. Oddly enough, you can put the commonest type of Wheatstone bridge together and give it no damping, and the thing oddly enough will register even think. So there’s nothing very mysterious about it.

The mind is hung together electronically, it’s hung together with electricity. There are standing waves, standing masses, in it which are timeless. These things are drifting along in present time—and it obeys all of your electrical laws and impulses.

But remember something: the human being is the author of this universe and he’s also the author of all the electronics in this universe. Actually, there are flows and currents in the human mind that have not yet been discovered in electronics. See? That a junior subject can now study a senior subject is, of course, a weird joke. But it can, which is quite peculiar.

Now, you’re not interested in why an E-Meter reads really, unless you want to do some research in that particular line—beyond this one thing: a thetan is an electric eel and it measures electric currents. That’s about as close as I care to come to it myself. I never speculate on this. But you talk about oddball, offbeat data on the subject of the E-Meter. Why does the meter go tickity-tick, back and forth, with an exact pattern every time when a person wants to leave or go away or blow out of his head, or so forth?

The theta bop. The study of the theta bop could be very long and very involved. I can tell you numerous ways to produce a theta bop. Lots of ways. “Did you ever think of leaving anybody?” You get a theta bop, you see? “Did you ever think of dying?” You get a theta bop. “Try not to be three feet in back of your head.” You get a theta bop. Shoot him with a .45, you’ll get a theta bop. I mean, it’s an interesting thing. Well, we get the coordinative action then, and one of the ways that you could deduce or surmise that people could exteriorize and what exteriorization was and how people leave their bodies at the time of death and that sort of thing can be traced with a theta bop.

What do you want to trace it for? Why don’t you just learn how to get out of your head and see how it is and get back in again. See? You don’t have to figure these things out because you’re on the main road anyhow. You don’t have to go at it with a bunch of logics and substitutes, because it’s there to look at. So you can go around picking up pebbles all over the road. You can get them in your shoes. You can fall in the ditch. You can run into milestones and culverts and bridge abutments and the neighbor’s fence. You can do all of these things, but let me call to your attention that there is a main highway, and you can go down it at 110 miles an hour.
 
And it’s the instant read; prior reads don’t count; latent reads don’t count. Just instant reads, that’s all. And the instant read will abide by the major thought that you’re putting across to the pc and, oddly enough, will occur exactly as though somebody over there had been informed when you were going to stop talking. Probably the OGPU or the NKVD. I don’t know, they have an intelligence service involved.

You can be very mysterious about the whole thing, but the funny part of it is, it becomes terribly simple. And when you look at it in that way, when you clean up everything in this way, E-Metering becomes very odd.

Now, if you’re so involved in prior reads and so involved in latent reads and so involved in why it reads, and if you also have a number of invalidations of the meter and also suspect that it doesn’t work because it hasn’t worked on you—you see, one day it didn’t read when you knew it should have read—why, naturally you’re going to have a hell of a time with a meter.

So break it down to that simplicity. Look at the only important read that is on the machine and you’ve got it.

The only other thing I can tell you about a read is when it goes more than one simple read, it is a dirty needle and is measuring, somewhere on the track, a missed withhold.

All the goals and items that you want have a single tick. The only reaction you will get on a proven goal item—single tick.

Double tick? Then the whole goal or item is a missed withhold. Soon as you get the missed withhold off, it’ll no longer read. Missed withholds are always more than one tick. You never have goals and items finally proven out with any other pattern.

I have seen some prove out with a rock slam. I’ve seen some prove out with a rock slam. But laterly, I have realized that there wasn’t much of a list every time that occurred. If there’d been a little bit more of a list, they would have proved out with a tick. It’s all right as a goal, but I see these things months and months afterwards when they’ve settled down, and they all prove out with a tick. You understand? That’s all you’re really interested in with a meter.

Now, you talk about speeded rises, speeded falls, slowed rises, slowed falls—yeah, but those are all instant reads. Now you’re talking about out rudiments. Now you’re talking about reading the significance of the thought majeure, but it’s still an instant read. It is merely a change of needle pattern. So there’s significances about what this read is and what that read is, and I’ve just rattled them off to you. See?

There are no more than that, you see? The dirty needle is always a missed withhold. That’s a double-tick arrangement. Any change of needle pattern at the instant you’re finished is an instant read. And that goals and items when they check out, if they’re valid, turn out to be single ticks.

Frankly, you could get along with just the data which I’ve given you in this lecture, and if you applied that and didn’t go scrambling around the road for a bunch of new data, why, man, you’d have all the rudiments in, you’d be sailing and everything would be fine. Okay?

Audience: Yes.

I don’t say stop thinking. Think all you want to. But don’t stop looking.

Thank you.

COMM CYCLES  IN AUDITING

A lecture given on
25 July 1963

All right. Beautiful, sunshiny day here; cherish it. Go out and make a facsimile of it.

This is what?

Audience: 25 July.

25 July. What do you know about that? A.D. 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

The auditing cycle. Once upon a time there was an auditor and he knew he could audit; he knew he could audit. But pcs, they just wouldn’t pc worth a nickel. And the auditor said, “Well, I’ll have to get out of Scientology because pcs are no good.”

You’d be surprised how often this line of logic—ha—gets in the road. Most auditors, early on, have a definite idea that there’s tremendous variation in pcs, and that some pcs can be audited and some pcs can’t be audited, and that there are good pcs and bad pcs, and all different kinds of pcs.

Well, there are worrisome pcs, but just to the degree that you can’t get them to get tone arm action. And some pcs are closer to aquiver on the subject of a communication breakdown than others; they’re more nervy. Those things are true. But practically no pc can stand up against a good auditing cycle, you know, and say, “Well, I’m going on being aberrated for the rest of my days because that makes everybody wrong and makes me right.”

The difficulty that an auditor gets into is normally found in his own auditing cycle and his own impatience. His disabilities in this particular line are last detected by himself. In other words, he’s really the last to find this out.

If an auditor wants to polish up his auditing, I recommend putting a piece of session on a tape, at least a piece of a session, and then listening to that tape back, and not listening to the ramifications or the flubs. Anybody is liable to make a duplicative-type flub, you know. Like, you’ve had to change your auditing command—you heard me make one the other day on that tape. I had to change the command, because I was getting so much bang out of “mainly” that I had to put “mostly.” And then I was grooved into saying “mainly,” and my concentration, of course, was for the pc, and I was slipping up and I was occasionally saying “mainly” again when I was trying to say “mostly.”

Well, you’re liable to pick on that kind of thing as being a very important error. Actually, it isn’t very important. What’s important is: Did you complete your auditing cycle? See, it really isn’t how gracefully you completed it, but did you complete it?

There are two communication cycles that make up the auditing cycles, and those are: cause-distance-effect with the auditor at cause and the pc at effect; and cause-distance-effect with the pc at cause and the auditor at effect. Those are completely distinct, one from the other.

Now, the only place they impinge on each other at all—and this is the only thing that connects them and makes an auditing cycle—is the fact that the auditor, on his cycle, has calculatingly restimulated something in the pc, which is then discharged by the pc’s auditing cycle.

So you see, you’ve kind of got a V lying on its side. You see, you’ve got the upper V here with the auditor at the top of the wing, you see, and he’s cause, distance, effect; and here at the point of the V, you customarily think of that as just one turn. Actually, there’s a complication right there: It’s what the auditor has said has caused a restimulation at that point, and then the pc is honor bound to start an auditing cycle to get rid of the restimulation. Can you see that? And that is the game that is being played in an auditing cycle, and that’s the entirety of the game. There’s nothing else esoteric about it at all.

Don’t think otherwise than that the auditor is restimulating the pc. Now, some auditing—some auditing—breaks down because the auditor is unwilling to restimulate the pc. Now, you’ll see this on a gross level when somebody said, “I had to stop auditing him because the somatics were so great.” You see? I’ve actually heard somebody say that—seriously.

And I think to myself, “The poor pc, man.” At that point of the V where those two come together and where effect turns into cause, where the pc is there, at that point, you have a restimulation and then the necessity of answering the question to get rid of the restimulation.

Now, if the pc doesn’t answer the question, the pc does not get rid of the restimulation. If he alter-ises at that point, then every restimulation is going to become an alter-is. And all pcs who are having any trouble alter-is at that point of the V.

Here, I’ll draw you a picture. [See Lecture Chart] Here is your V. And this is cause and this is distance and this is effect. Now, here’s your auditor, see? And here’s the pc. Now, at this point here is where you get your restimulation factor. And this point is again, now, cause-distance-effect, see? So we get cause-distance-effect, see? And that’s what an auditing cycle in actual fact looks like.

Now, there are some little inner cycles—there are some little inner cycles that throw you off and make you think that there are some other things to the auditing cycle. And these little inner cycles are when you get cause-distance-effect, and he has answered the question, the auditor then says, “Thank you.” Well, actually, that’s a shadow. And this now starts the shadow back, you see? You understand?

See, there’s a little extra communication cycle on here; it’s an extra cycle, see? And you have this as the acknowledgment cycle. So you have here an ack, and of course that goes this way, you understand, and is received over here; and that’s all there is to it. That’s a little fade-out, don’t you see?

Well, I very often berate you for being not perceptive, and not auditing the pc and not seeing what’s happening to the pc, or what’s going on there, don’t you see? So I get this kind of an action here: There is another one of these little shadow cycles. The pc has received the auditing command. And that is such a tiny cause that nearly all auditors who are having any trouble finding out what’s going on with the pc are missing that one.

You say, “Do birds fly?” and then you fail to perceive that the pc received the auditing command. Now, that’s because he doesn’t say anything. See, here’s your main cycle: cause-distance-effect; “Do birds fly?” See?

And the pc says, “No.”

Well, actually, there’s another cause in here; there’s another little tiny one, and it’s right here and it’s a little c, see? And you’re missing that one where you’re not perceiving the pc. Does he receive it?

You say, “Do birds fly?”

And he says . . . That’s all the cause that is emanated at this point, by the pc. See, he just . . . See, that would be exaggerating it.

But you can tell by looking at him that he didn’t understand what you’d said, or that he was doing something peculiar with the command he was receiving, you see? Doing something peculiar with this command.
Well, it’s actually whatever that message is that is in response here, whatever message that is, does ride on this line. And an auditor who isn’t watching the pc at all then never notices a pc who isn’t receiving or understanding the auditing command; and all of a sudden, somewhere along the line, there’s an ARC break, and then we do assessments and then we patch up the session and all kinds of things go wrong. Well, they actually needn’t ever have gone wrong in the first place.

What is the pc doing, completely aside from answering? Well, that what he-is-doing is this other little sub-cause-distance-effect line. So a complete auditing cycle consists of no less than six communication cycles, if you really want to get it down to the last ramifications. But the important ones are four. You’ve got four communication cycles.

Well, where are the other two? Where’s the other two? They’re so tiny that you wouldn’t really notice them, but they are there. Cause-distance-effect of “Is the pc ready to receive an auditing command?” See, is he ready to receive an auditing command? He’s going, “Oh, rum-rum-rum-rum-rum.” Well, that action is actually pc causing, isn’t it? And it has to ride up the line across distance and [be] received at the auditor; and the auditor perceives that the pc is doing something else.

You say, “That’s not very important,” you see? But it is; it is. You’ll find auditors goof that one very often. And the pc is going... And the auditor says—he’s nulling, let us say—and he says, “catfish,” “cat fur,” and so forth. And the pc is going like this, you see? See, he’s not noticed this first one.

That causes this kind of trouble: You’ve got the item “fur” on a list that you’re nulling, and you hit the item “fur” and it goes through, actually, a complete auditing cycle, one way or the other, because you very often say thank you after you’ve done so. It’s a very jammed-up auditing cycle, but it’s there, you see?

And then you go on to “catfish” on the next one, without performing this top cycle: Is the pc ready to have “catfish” read to him? No, he’s hung up on “fur,” and the only time you ever get into real catastrophe is when the pc is really hung up on “fur.” God, when you said “fur,” the pc went, “Ew-w-w-w.” Dong! and there he is, see?

“What’s happened? Where is it? Ho! What’s happened?” See? You ever have that happen to you? Somebody goes over a line—bong! it goes. And the next thing you know, in the far-off distance you hear “catfish,” “cat whiskers . . . “

And you say, “What’s that? Where’s this? Who’s what?” This one becomes terribly important when you run into a situation like that. You don’t really pay too much attention to it. But it exists. Got it? It exists.

And there’s another one down here. There’s another little one down here: Pc received the acknowledgment. And sometimes you violate that sixth one. You say, “Thank you!” and the pc goes like this. Or that you say, “Thank you,” and the pc . . . If you were to do old-time Model Session end-of-session mid ruds at that point, you’d find out the pc asked you why you never acknowledged him. See? You have been acknowledging him, but you’ve never seen that he didn’t receive the acknowledgment, don’t you see?
 
That perception has another little tiny one in it, is: Has the pc said everything? But that actually comes on this line here: Has the pc answered everything, see? And it becomes—the auditor is watching the pc, see? And the auditor sees that the pc has not said all he was going to say. Sometimes get in trouble with pcs that way.

Pc says, “Oh, yeah, it was sometime in the later days of the Roman Empire. . .” You know he’s going to say something else, see? Well, this one isn’t complete. So everything at cause hasn’t moved down the line here to you, effect. And you haven’t perceived all of the effect. So you go into the acknowledgment one before this line has completed itself, don’t you see?
“Well, it was in the early days of the Roman Empire. Um . . .”

“Thank you! Now, we will . . .” Duh-uh-uh-uh. You’ve seen that happen. That’s chopping a pc’s comm, see?

They didn’t let this line here, which is the fourth communication cycle, flow to its complete end. And then this one, the acknowledgment, takes place. And of course it can’t go through because this, the fifth communication cycle, is sitting up here on the fourth communication cycle.

So you say, “Thank you,” and of course you’re right back against—and it’s an inflowing line and they jam right there.

So there are six—if you really want to break it all down—there are six communication cycles that make up one auditing cycle. Six—not more than six, unless you start running into trouble. And when you violate that—one of those six, when you violate one of those six—you of course are going to get into trouble, then, which causes a mishmash of one kind or another.

Now, I’ll go over these again. I think you would care to have me do that, wouldn’t you?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Up here we have number one: the pc. His emanation at that point is simply his appearance and presence. That’s number one. Is he ready to have an auditing command given to him? See, are we all set here for the auditing command? That’s number one. That’s a communication cycle consistence of cause, distance, effect.

Your next communication cycle on the thing—we had better go into number three—is your auditor’s communication straight down to the pc. That is the auditing command and that you normally consider the communication cycle. Got it? That’s what you normally say: “Do birds fly?” That’s cause-distance-effect received at the pc’s—here.

Now he has to take care of and handle the charge at this point (and I’ll cover this in a minute), he’ll have to handle the charge at this point which has been restimulated by the auditor. And now he originates (although we use another designation; I’ve used origination otherwise, and so forth): He has his answer, which is what you normally call it. His answer, however, is a cause. And that’s a cause, a distance and an effect. You understand?

Now, your next one is an acknowledgment by the auditor which goes over cause, distance, effect, is received by the pc; and this is the perception of whether or not the pc receives the acknowledgment. Got that?

But you go over this, work this thing out, you’ll find out that it’s a very complicated arrangement. And you can count on anybody studying this, promptly and immediately afterwards not being able to audit at all. It’s something like taking a golf pro and say, “How do you handle your club?”

But this is your main show.

Now, what you’ve considered ordinarily the auditing cycle has been this first V which I drew, which is cause-distance-effect—with the pc at effect, the auditor at cause. And then, at that V, the restimulation takes place and you get cause -distance -effect.

Now, I’m not going to go into the rest of the auditing cycle till I show you the center of this thing, okay?

There is another communication cycle inside the auditing cycle—another communication cycle. And that is at the point of the V. [See Lecture Chart] Here’s your pc and here’s your auditor, and here was your cause, your distance, effect; here is your cause, your distance, effect and here was a C and here was an E. Don’t you see? Cause-distance-effect at the pc. That’s the auditing command. And then you’ve got cause-distance-effect which is the auditing response.

Well, we’ve opened up the point of the V. And here is your little additional one, and that’s between the pc and himself. Here—see what this is. Now, this actually can be multiple, and it depends upon the complications of the mind. But because there has been an effect there, that causes a cause. See? Because you have an effect at this point of impact, you get a restimulation. Now, that stimulation brings about charge, which then causes the pc to emanate to get rid of that charge. So you have an internal one, here, of cause-distance-effect inside the pc’s skull.

Well, that gives us seven communication cycles.

Now, I said this could be multiple. This is him talking to him, see? And you say, “Do birds fly?” and this causes a picture of birds. He receives the effect of the picture of birds, and he causes a query of the picture. “Are they flying?” And as a result, the answer comes back of the flapping of the wings and he says, “Yes, they’re flying.” And so with his thought he transmits, then, the causative action to the auditor—now directed at the auditor—”Yes.” You see how that can be multiple?

Now, you’re listening to the inside of his skull when you’re examining that V down there. Now, if you think that the inside of the skull is more important than the rest of the cycles, you’re going to be very, very disabused. This happens to be the least important of all of the actions, except when it isn’t being done. And of course it’s the hardest to detect when it isn’t being done. It’s the hardest to detect.

Pc says, “Yes.” Well now, what has the pc said yes to? And you sometimes are “insufficiently incurious.” You’ve said, “Do birds fly?” and the pc receives this, and he gets a picture of a dinosaur who is eating, and perceives that dinosaurs eat and says, “Yes.” And carrying out the remaining part of the sentence, it would be, “Yes, dinosaurs eat.”

So this is actually what it sounds like to the auditor: “Do birds fly?”

“Yes.”

“Thank you.”

See, that’s what it sounds like to the auditor—that’s the big V.

Actually, this is what happened: “Do birds fly.?”

And the point of the V is haywire; we get a dub-in, see? Picture of a dinosaur flies up, because that’s safer to look at than birds, for some reason, or more interesting or different. It’s an alter-is of some kind or another—happens on an automaticity.

The pc thinks he understands the question now on the basis of “Do dinosaurs eat?” and says, “Yes.”

And the auditor says, “Thank you.”

Hey, wait a minute. What’s going to happen to this pc? What’s going to happen to the pc? And that, in essence, is this internal perception of line, which I showed you on the other side. This cause-distance-effect backflash here, and so forth, happens to include “Is the pc answering the command I gave him?” Question.

Now, all of this is very complicated, isn’t it? And it’s sufficiently complicated that any auditor ought to sit down with a piece of paper and work it all out—and not expect me to tell them. I think there are very few auditors ever really inspected that to the degree that it’s a multiple cycle. There are seven or more communication cycles involved in an auditing cycle. Now, it’s actually weighty enough that standing up here giving you a lecture on the subject, off the cuff, see, it’s very easy to get mixed up on which cycle is which, because it requires a little bit of concentration. You have to actually mock up a complete session, see—complete auditing cycle—and pick out every communication cycle in the auditing cycle.

Now, a communication cycle consists of just cause, distance, effect, with intention and duplication. That’s all—that’s a communication cycle. How many of these are there in one auditing cycle? And that would include every nuance of the auditing session. So you have to answer with how many principal ones are there? Because some auditing cycles could contain a couple of more.

The pc says, “Huh?” You see, that’s a cause. That goes over distance, effect.

And the auditor says, “Do birds fly?” He says, “I will repeat the auditing question. Do birds fly?” And that goes cause-distance-effect. But you immediately have added two more cycles and so you’ve got nine—because there was a flub, see? You got that?

So anything unusual that happens in the session adds to the number of communication cycles to the auditing cycle, but they’re still all part of the auditing cycle.

Now, we’ve got repetitive commands as an auditing cycle, and that’s doing this same cycle over and over and over.

Now, I’ll give you some homework here; this is for your own good. You draw out all these communication cycles on a scrap of paper for yourself. Just take a look at all these things and mock up a session, like you do this and the pc does that, and so forth. And all of a sudden it’ll come very straight in your skull how many of these things there are, and you won’t have a couple of them jammed up. Because actually, what’s mainly wrong with your auditing cycle is you have confused a couple of communication cycles to such a degree that you don’t differentiate that they exist. That’s why you sometimes chop a pc who is trying to answer the question, see?

You know whether he has answered the question or not.

Well, how did you know if he has answered the question or not? By esoterics? New subject matter: esoterics. If you’re very skilled at esoterics, you could probably manage it. But there are no esoterics involved. Even if it’s telepathy, it’s cause, distance, effect. Doesn’t matter how that communication took place; you know whether he’s answered the auditing command by a communication cycle. I don’t care if the distance was zero. It was permeation from same location in space; you were in the pc’s head. I don’t care how you sense this or if you know that ordinarily this pc is green when he answers an auditing command and he turns pale white this particular time. You realize he’s not answered the auditing command. Well, how did you know that? Well, obviously, it’s a communication cycle inside the auditing cycle.

So, I’ll give you a little assignment there. You work that thing out. How many of these things are there? And then expect to drop the mashie and the niblick and hook one into the woods for a day or two. So that’s perfectly all right to do that, see?

I myself occasionally take apart a piece of auditing and find myself gapping briefly in a session, because I’ve been trying to put together a very flexible R2H, because R2H (the way it was originally released) is a very skilled activity. It’s too much for me. That’s right! It’s just too confoundedly skilled. I know you can’t do it. Impossible! It’s too prone to error. Good training: Man, if you can do that, you can do anything! I mean it If you can do that, you can do anything.

But, boy, by the time you get some pc who’s got an insignificant ARC break that doesn’t have the punch of an engram or anything like that behind it, and you’re trying to date that confounded thing on a meter—it’s just smooth as glass, and so forth—you practically have to ARC break the pc again to get the meter to read! Terrific training.

But inherent in that process—inherent in that process—there are a great many processes which go pretty well south and which will, actually, practically go one shot to OT, see? It’s masked, however, in the exact mechanics that you’re handling.

I found out that you have to use ten—a minimum of ten—steps to get the terrific therapeutic result of which it’s capable. At least ten steps. In fact, I got one version of it on the drawing table right now, which I’ve been working with: I don’t know, I think it must have about eighteen separate steps. I’m just trying to milk this thing down for maximum tone arm action, minimal error and maximal ease of auditing. You’re doing a training version now. It won’t be changed. Go right ahead with it.

But this is really putting that process up to make it get its most results, see? And, by the way, there are only nine levels of assessment in this newest version I’m working out—just nine lines, takes care of the lot. But that’s all progress.

But I’m running all this on a pc. You get the idea? It’s all brand-new, and it’s impossible to audit the original version of it anyway. And I’m handling something that has fifteen steps in it, all of which are strange and different, and the pc has done something incredible in the session that I haven’t yet suspected. And boy! You talk about the mashie and the niblick, man! You know? That golf ball goes straight through the trees, hits a tree trunk, caroms off a rock, goes straight up into the sky and vanishes forever.

All right. Well, if you’re nervy on the subject of handling the basic tool of auditing, if that’s giving you trouble and if you can get yourself into trouble by suddenly breaking it down and analyzing it, then it should be broken down and analyzed at the time you’re auditing something nice and simple. That’s the time it should be broken down—not until you have three woods in your right hand and four irons in your left hand and you’re going to putt with the heel of your golf shoe, see? I mean, this is not the time to practice this auditing cycle.

So you go ahead and break it down. I’ve given you a general pattern for an auditing cycle. Maybe in working it over you can find a couple of extra communication cycles in the thing. But they’re all there, and if you made somebody go through each one painstakingly and painfully, you would find out where his auditing cycle was jammed up. And it isn’t necessarily jammed up on his ability to say “Thank you!” It may very well be jammed up in another quarter. Got that?

Now, there’s a completely different auditing cycle inside the same pattern.

Just wanted to make you comfortable and make you feel relaxed.

Let’s work this one out. [See Lecture Chart] Here’s the pc. This pc, “he gonna originate.” This has got nothing to do with the auditing cycle. Scrub that other one! This now has nothing to do with it. The only thing they have in common is that they both use communication cycles. That they have in common. But this is brand-new. This is the bolt from Mars. It comes out of the blue, and an auditor who is already concentrating . . . He’s auditing, you know . . . There are people, they used to read—they’d move their lips while they read, you know? And everybody would make a lot of fun of them, you know, for . . . You know?

Well, an auditor who’s handling his communication cycles and his main auditing cycle on a lip-moving level, see—he’s brand-new at this sort of thing: the pc says something, see, that is not germane to what the auditor is saying or doing. And there is just—well, just trucks go over the cliff, jet ships crash, see? All goes to hell, man!

So you actually have to be alert for this thing happening at any time. And the way to prepare for it is just to realize that it can happen any time; and just go into the drill that handles it, and don’t get it confused with the drill which you have as an auditing cycle; and consider it as its own drill. It’s its own drill. You shift gears into this drill when the pc does something unexpected.

And by the way, this handles such a thing as the pc originates by throwing down the cans. That’s still an origin, see? That had nothing to do with the auditing cycle. The auditing cycle went to pieces, maybe, and this cycle came in. Well, the other auditing cycle can’t complete because this cycle is now here. Well, that doesn’t mean that this cycle has precedence or dominance, but this cycle can start and take place and have to be finished off before the other one can resume.

So this is an interruptive cycle. And it is cause and distance and effect. And here’s your auditor. The pc causes something. Now your auditor has to originate, and your V is inverted.

Now let’s investigate here. Let’s investigate that point. Let’s expand the point, just as we did in the auditing cycle. What’s this going to be, a mad spate of question marks or rockets flying off at oblique angles, or what’s going to happen at this point?

Well, Dankly, you can’t put a machine at that point. You can’t put a machine action at that point, because this thing has to be understood— has to be understood. So, to the degree that it is hard to understand, you have cause-distance-effect, cause-distance-effect. You understand? This is the auditor trying to clarify this thing. And every time he asks a question, he’s got a new communication cycle.

Well, the trick that happens at the open V must not be such as to merely get the original line, cause-distance-effect, repeating itself. You mustn’t have the pc continuing to repeat that line, because the pc is now going to go frantic. Because he can’t get off of that line, he’s stuck in time, and it really upsets him.

So the auditor, when this V is expanded here, has to be able to understand what the devil the pc is talking about. Now, there’s really no substitute for simply trying to understand it.

The pc all of a sudden says, “But the Roman Empire didn’t have any legs!”

“Tell me a little more about that, please.” That’s a good response.

And the pc immediately goes off into can gesticulations like mad and explains how because of North Africa being in its situation, you see, Egypt being in its situation, and that sort of thing, the Roman Empire didn’t run on legs. It didn’t run on legs at all; it ran on rivers. We’re now getting in deeper.

“All right. Good enough; good enough. I hear what you’re saying, now. Give me a little more dope on this so I can get a good grasp of it.”

Oh, and the pc will go on and he’ll expostulate and understand it. And he’ll understand it better through telling you. And all of a sudden, you’ll find out that he’s telling you it didn’t have any legs, and it didn’t have any legs to stand on—that is what he really meant, and so forth. And he’s got it all doped out, and all of a sudden you see what the hell he’s talking about. And at that point, you can resolve this point at the open V, you see? And “Oh, that’s what the hell he’s talking about” is the name of that expanded little V. “Oh, that’s what the hell he’s talking about” is the name of that cause-distance-effect, see? And then you say (cause-distance-effect), “Thank you.”

How many more lines can you put in there? Well, you have to have another little line up here, which is another little cause-distance-effect, before that origination takes place so that you don’t run into a jam and you don’t give the auditing command. He’s originated that he’s going to say something. He says—see, whatever it is—and that’s not the time for you to say “Do fish swim?” See? You suddenly notice there’s a flicker across the table and the pc is saying . . . See, that’s another little communication cycle. So it’s cause-distance-effect. And effect at your point is to shut up. See?

And then, you actually can have another little one, here, that’s a cause-distance-effect, of “I’m listening.” Get the idea? And then, of course, there’s your extra ones down here—when you’ve said “Thank you,” then it’s your perception of the fact that he has received the thank-you. And there’s your origin.

Got it?

Audience: Yeah.

The building brick out of which all of these things are made are communication cycles. That’s just cause, distance, effect, with intention and duplication, see? That’s the lot, see?

But when you say “duplication”—when you say this—you are carrying, then, the communication cycle over into the A and the R. because there must be understanding.

Now, this is peculiar: There is a difference between an auditing cycle and a military communication cycle. “Theirs is not to question why; theirs is but to do and die” is definitely the military attitude toward the whole thing. And whereas this, too, can get into auditing—and actually is not disallowed and is sometimes used, and not without benefit. The guy is not going to touch that wall. “Thou shalt touch that wall,” you see? This kind of an action very often takes place. He’s not going to give up the withhold. “Well, you goddamn well are going to give up the withhold,” you know? Bow! see? That sort of thing is very often better than not doing anything about it. There are more adroit ways to do it—but this is real crude auditing. But that’s the only time it gets over into the military cycle.

Now, the military cycle is simply cause, distance, effect, compliance. And the auditing cycle is cause, distance, effect, understand. So there is an A and an R at the effect point. And therefore, there has to be an A and an R at the cause point, so as to make “understand” acceptable at the effect point. There doesn’t have to be, but there had better be. You see that?

So there’s where A and R fit in on the communication cycle where auditing are concerned. They are very carefully designed.

Now, a very syrupy affinity is very often highly detrimental to auditing. But too snarly or abrupt an affinity is also detrimental to auditing.

We haven’t completed talking about the auditing cycle by a long ways. The auditing cycle, you would say, then, is TR 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and so forth. Well, the auditing cycle has very little to do with TR 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, just as such, and only as such. The TRs have to do with the communication cycle. And you have to put one all the way together at about TR 5 or TR 6 to take in all of these communication cycles. You understand?

What the lower TRs do is teach you to handle one communication cycle— see, from one side or the other—in varying degrees of complication. Now, of course you’ve got to have TR 0, because all of these things have to do with confront. All of them have to do with confront, so you’d say TR 0 is native to all of them. TR 1: Well, that’s an emanation. And TR 2 i8 a receipt. So of course, those just handle what? They just handle nothing but the communication cycle. Do you see that?
 
Now, you can go on and build this up from this point on, but you will find that a complete auditing cycle would require a full-dress-parade TR that covered, maybe, at least six. And then you could have another TR that covered it up to nine, ten or twelve. And you could have another TR that handled an origin through all of its cycles—but that’s supposed to be, right now, TR 4.

See, TR 4—you’ve always had trouble with TR 4. Maybe I’ve shown you why today. Look at TR 4. See, that’s a picture of TR 4. The V is the other way around. This thing is all upside down, you see?

But that isn’t all there is to the A and the R in connection with the communication cycle. TR 1: How good is somebody’s TR 1? Well, let me tell you that the ability to say “Do fish swim?” might serve, but how about being comprehensible? How about being comprehensible? Enunciatively comprehensible: you can understand the syllables. How about that? We can get over that point. But how about giving it an understandable communication? Now, let’s look at this in its widest ramifications. The R-factor has to be present there so that it can be duplicatable.

You very often, when you leave some auditors loose on making up a command, or asking something, or there’s a hole in the routine and it doesn’t give them those words, will do a put-together of the statement to be said to the pc which, at the arrival at the pc, is incomprehensible. And yet an auditor is very often called upon to do this. I’ve noticed this. I’m not being condemnatory of auditors in general, but I’ve noticed here and there. When an auditor— some auditors are left completely on their own . . . Well, something like this: “Well, get me a list. Get me a list of the stuff he’s worried about.” And you expect them to put together a question something like “What are you worried about?” see? And you get some entirely different, incomprehensible version, like “What are the worst part of your worries sometimes?” Something like this. Now, that’s almost sensible compared to some of them I’ve seen. They’re just absolutely incomprehensible. Absolutely incomprehensible.

I don’t know how anybody—and I have actually seen somebody run a level fitted into one of these five-to-fifteen command brackets, which didn’t make any sense at all, and suddenly found to my horror that some pc had actually been running on this for hours and hours and hours, and every time they arrive at it, says, “I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about at this point.”

And the auditor just says, “I will repeat the auditing question.”

So there’s this factor in this communication cycle, that the TR 1 aspect must be (1) enunciated in such a way as to arrive in an understandable form, but very often, when the auditor is formulating something, has to be formulated so that it can be duplicated. So these two other factors are involved, besides simply being at cause—is the cause going out with any R? In other words, can you understand any part of this thing? Is this an understandable statement?

“Do fish someti . . . I’ll repeat the auditing question: Do fish somet . . .” Naturally, no auditing can proceed.

You start dropping s’s off of everything; or get somebody with a Japanese curve; you get somebody doing something that is a little bit offbeat in pronunciation—somebody from Boston. Let’s go worse—somebody from Maine. You ever hear a “Maine-iac” talk?

I was up there finding the Canadian border. The United States government lost it. (They’d lose their heads, you know, if you didn’t watch them.) Anyway, they lost the Canadian border and went up and found it again. Found a tree had fallen on it and buried the marker. They have little pyramids that look like the Washington Monument that mark the border.

It was very necessary, because the Prohibition agents didn’t know where their authority started and ended, see? It caused terrible things. We took the problem off because what we were doing when we were surveying is we would stop the rum runners and tell them we were Prohibition agents, relieve them of their cargo, and we always had a lot to drink!

Anyway, we solved this problem practically. The U.S. government could’ve taken a lot of leaves from, I think, most of us on practical solutions to these problems.

But I spent the most delighted summer trying to learn to speak “Maineiac.” Gorgeous. And the French that had been living up along the St. Lawrence didn’t speak French and they didn’t speak English. They spoke something else. But it was sure interesting. Got so I could speak the thing, you know? I’d talk about “Baa-haaba” [Bar Harbor] with the best of them. But it wouldn’t go in an auditing session.

And very often, some pc gets saddled with an auditor that he can’t quite comprehend along some corner or another. Now, you should recognize what’s out. The only thing that is out is the R-factor in the TR 1. And an auditor should actually take great care to keep that one smoothed out. If he knows he’s doing something weird that the pc can’t comprehend, it doesn’t matter how clumsily he sets it right so long as he sets it right.

Supposing you can’t tell the difference between the way he pronounces flue and the way he pronounces six. You can imagine these two getting jammed. The pc, for some reason or other, always thinks the auditor is saying five when he’s saying six, and six when he’s saying five. What do you think’s going to happen in R3R, see?

So therefore, it is up to the auditor to be comprehensible. That’s where the R-factor comes in. Be comprehensible. Not only from standpoint of accent, but sense: the comprehensibility. Diction enters into this. I can see some university in the future teaching auditing English, you see, or auditing speech. Actually, it’d be a big department, because you’d have to have the translation of all this stuff into German; you have a translation and then its enunciation in German—same factor would apply, don’t you see? The same factor in Swedish, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, all of this stuff. How do you audit these guys, you see? Well, all right. So you’re going to have auditors perhaps from that country, but remember, they will have the same frailties of pronunciation.

How about translation of line plots, what line plots actually sum up into. Some of these countries don’t have good terminology to follow through on a line plot. And yet the line plot will only fire on the right terminology. Don’t you see, there’s a lot of stuff to be worked out on this particular factor. But there’s stuff to be worked out on it right now.

An auditor who is not comprehended by the pc isn’t doing his TR 1 right. And therefore the R-factor is very germane to whether the communication cycle can take place at all. And if you say “Do fish ?” You can’t do that. Do you see that nothing happens and no communication cycle takes place at all? So the R-factor can do a complete wipeout. Interesting, isn’t it?

Then you have the pc who doesn’t want to be audited. He doesn’t want to be audited at all. Well, how on earth can you start that one going? Because you’ve got to have a communication cycle before you can even put an R-factor in. See, that’s worse end to. He just won’t listen to any part of Scientology. This is not a speech defect, but actually requires a lower-level process which gets him to talk about Scientology anyhow.

We used to have one, “Well, tell me why you shouldn’t be audited.” Tricky kind of an approach of this particular character.

This is all very feasible. But this comes under the heading of getting a communication cycle started, and the auditor is very often confronted by that. So there is something which actually is prior to the communication cycle, see, and that you are very often happy to see exists. And when it goes out the window, you very often are sitting there with your eyes popped—you don’t know quite what to do. Well, the thing is, you can’t get the communication cycle going.

Now, very often the R-factor is out—wildly. Or the affinity factor is out. The affinity factor is out because the pc is being very misemotional. Well, oddly enough, you can do an ARC Break Assessment today, and find the bypassed charge and use that to complete the communication cycle which you started and which wouldn’t complete, because it is the generated charge. And that was why I showed you, particularly, the expanded point of the V.

What has happened there is inadvertently, one way or the other, the point of the V has gone awry. The auditor somehow or another or the pc somehow or another has restimulated a charge which has then not been originated either to the auditor or the pc. See, an overrestimulation has taken place there. It’s quite easy to do. It’s quite easy, though, to pick up these days. So, these ARC Break Assessments is [are] a pilot of completing the communication cycle and getting the auditing cycle going again. See how that fits in?

All right. Now, that’s all very well to talk about the auditing cycle and say that’s just all there is to the auditing cycle, but there’s (I mentioned a moment ago) the repetitive auditing cycle. This cycle going over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, is a specialized activity. There’s an auditing cycle of one cycle and then there is the auditing cycle of the next cycle and the next cycle and the next cycle and the next cycle, see? That’s a different thing— doing it many times. You get your repetitive process, and this is where that gets you in trouble. There is a point where this over-and-over-again gets you in trouble.

You must, you absolutely must, complete a communication—all communication cycles of an auditing cycle. Therefore, you must complete an auditing cycle. But you must also differentiate the difference between one auditing cycle and the repetitive auditing cycle. And why must you generate this difference? It’s because one auditing cycle must be completed, and a repetitive auditing cycles are very often overdone, and don’t need to be completed in some cases. There’s a difference.

Ooohh, where am I leading you now? You will say, “What’s this? What’s this? You mean you don’t flatten a process?” Yes, you always flatten a process. But some auditor can get so eager-beaver with his series—which is flatten the process, see—that he forgets why he is flattening the process. And that is your dominant cycle—is ability regained.

Why are you auditing the person in the first place? To do an auditing cycle? To do a series of auditing cycles, known as repetitive cycles, so that you can get a flattened process?

Now, you say, “Well, you’re doing that to flatten the tone arm action.” No, that’s right there with repetitive auditing cycle; that belongs right there with repetitive auditing cycle, don’t you see? There is something that dominates all of this; there’s a greater domination.

I’ll show you what these points are. This will intrigue you; I don’t think perhaps many of you have ever looked at this before. [See Lecture Chart] Here’s your big cycle, which is major cycle. See, that’s a major auditing cycle. And its proper name is Ability Regained.

Ha. I can see some of you now. You’re auditing engrams like mad and you hit this key engram and you hit the thing and you all of a sudden got an OT on your hands, and the fellow gets up and stretches and that sort of thing, and he’s getting all ready to square away, and he’s wondering what he should do with the body, and—you know? He’s all set and you’re going on: “All right. What is the duration of this engram?” Well, that’s just too much dedication to this next cycle, see?
 
And this you can call the Process (Cycle—Process Auditing Cycle. This, of course, is just your single auditing cycle. Your progress of case is up, like this, see? Now, if you don’t have your single cycle down, then of course you can’t do a repetitive cycle. Can’t do a repetitive auditing cycle, you can’t flatten the process, in other words, you see?

Now, a process is flattened by tone arm action out, no comm lag left, or cognition—I’ll draw you a picture of these things—or ability regained. [See Lecture Chart] Now, you understand, we’re going here from the Process Cycle to this Ability Regained cycle, you understand? We’re going just between those two. You understand here, that if you can’t do a single cycle, then it’s certain that you’re not going to be very successful in completing any process auditing cycle—which is the repetitive cycles—and if you can’t do this, then you certainly are not going to produce the upper one of ability regained. See? That’s obvious.
But what is a flat process cycle? You sometimes come a cropper on this and don’t realize what you’re coming up against.

Now, three equal commands—this is the lousiest one, see? Three equal commands. That’s smelly, but you say the process is flat, see? Safe to leave it. Well, you’d better leave it at the CCHs, otherwise your pc is going to start being unhappy. But remember that they must be confidently done, or something like that. You can’t have “He screamed three times,” you see?

You very often—you’d be surprised—you very often have this question asked Of you. You have some HPA student sometime saying, “Well, but he was angry the same way for three different commands, so therefore the process was flat.”

Now, your next level up here—your next level—is a more interesting level from a standpoint of that, but it’s perfectly safe to flatten it on a cognition. Guy gets a cognition: “Oh, yes!” see? Even a minor cognition, do you understand? That’s not a major cognition; that’s, you know, minor cognition—he had a win. “Hey, well, what do you know! That’s why elephants fly.” You know, that’s all set. Hasn’t too much to do with the process, but you sort of stop the process at that point. The pc is not going to suffer.

You understand that these first two levels that I’m talking to you about, of “How do you flatten a process?” are just—oh, that’s awful shabby sort of a way to look at the thing, but that’s just the minimum. That’s the minimum security.

Now let’s get to the real one, which is TA Flat—flat by TA. That’s your auditing cycles, repetitive auditing cycles, and you no longer have TA action on it here, don’t you see?

And up above this—and there are two levels of this, to make it better—is a Major Cognition. You’ll see that sometimes. You’ll see that sometimes. That takes precedence. You haven’t got the TA flat, but all of a sudden he cognites all of the level is flat you’re running. You’ll see him go pow! pow! pow!—off the meter. You’ve got—”failure to scream” was the level you were running, “about cats.” And he says, “Oh! Oh, yeah! Yeah, yeah, yeah! We used to mock up these forty-mile-high cats and yeah—oh, well, what the hell! Yeah!” And you see the meter blow down and bang and everything goes to hell. You try to run this process again. He hasn’t got any level there left to run. In fact, continuing the process after one of those things is invalidation of the pc.

Now, this is Ability Regained and that takes precedence over all of these. This guy couldn’t walk and you’re halfway through this and you haven’t got the TA flat and so forth and he hasn’t had any cognition you’re thinking about and your processing cycle’s a repetitive cycle, and all of a sudden the pc says, “Hey, what do you know!” you know? And he throws the electrodes down sideways and he gets up and starts walking, you know? “Eh! Yeah, I can do it!” Good, are you going to flatten the process now?
 
You may think I’m pointing out something ridiculous, but you do this quite often. You spoil it. You’ve got to know when to cut and run. See what I mean? What you got coming right up is you’re all of a sudden going to make an OT—and continue to flatten the process.

Now, let’s look at this, then. This single cycle—you got to have that one down cold, and there’s no doubt about that! Got to be able to complete that. You got to be able to complete it repetitively, time after time again, and that’s for flattening out a process. And the thing which takes dominance over that, of course, is you flatten out the process until you run into the ability regained.

Now, sometimes you don’t run into an ability regained and you go on and flatten the process, and have to do another process before you regain the ability, don’t you see? Sometimes you have to flatten a lot of these before you get up to that. Sometimes you halfway flatten one and you’re suddenly up to it. You see, but I’m just talking about auditing cycles—repetitive auditing cycles—and where they’re aiming toward. You’re aiming toward always getting this one completed, but the only thing that interrupts it, in any single cycle, is a cognition. Similar to repetitive cycles, ability regained—a single auditing cycle that you are doing runs into a cognition. What do you do in a case like that? Well, you don’t spoil the cognition by completing the auditing cycle. You can start another auditing cycle, if it is necessary to do so.

To that degree, to those modifications, these other things must be pushed through to the bitter end.

All right. Well, I’ve given you the dope on this. I imagine that you find this somewhat intriguing. It’s a better look, perhaps, than we have had at it. I’ve been meaning to get around to it for some time, actually, and I’ve been breaking it down myself so that it could be talked about better. And you’re seeing here a bit of gain; this isn’t something which I’ve known all the time and so forth and so on. But I have been studying this ability regained in relationship to finishing a whole series of auditing cycles, and then I started breaking down the single auditing cycle in its communication cycles and got it into a more communicable form. And I think you’ll find this very useful, both in teaching people and in auditing, yourself.

I wish you luck. Just go on and audit. Don’t try to make me guilty by suddenly knocking the ball into the rough because you’ve lost the grip.

Okay. Thank you very much.

AUDITING COMM CYCLES

A lecture given on
6 August 1963

Well, how are you today?

Audience: Good. Fine.

Good. Well, this is what?

Audience: 6th of August.

6 August, A.D. 13.

Every once in a while somebody says, “Well, why don’t you . . .” something or other, something or other, something or other—that’s the crux of the situation—” Why don’t you change all administrative actions? Why don’t you alter all central organizational lines?” “Why don’t you . . .” so forth. “Why don’t we change everything in the course?” and so on. What they’re dealing with is a problem they actually don’t see the breadth and depth of.

And that problem is this: The character of this planet and the population hereon makes it practically impossible to do anything with this planet. Now, I’m not taking off from a failure point. The stress and thought and prevention and cure and this and that which you have to go into on this planet to get anything done and running is absolutely fantastic.

Now, you want to ask why this is? Well, we can go into that in a moment. But those of you who have on the backtrack an experience of you just get some guys together and you do something, you see—well, that’s been a common experience, and you still tend to operate in that zone and sphere of influence. In other words, you said, “Well, it was very easy. We just whistle up Joe, Bill and Pete, and the four of us will go down there and fix up the signboards, and that’ll take care of that,” see? And you’re all set, see?

But that was yesteryear and elsewhere. And you apply that basic feeling to this planet and you’re in trouble at once. Why? This planet is part of a larger federation—was part of an earlier federation and passed out of its control due to losses in war and other such things. Now, this larger confederacy—this isn’t its right name, but we have often called it and referred to it in the past as the Marcab Confederacy. And it has been wrongly or rightly pointed to as one of the tail stars of the Big Dipper, which is the capital planet of which this planet is.

Now, all this sounds very space-opera-ish and that sort of thing, and I’m sorry for it, but I am not one to quibble about the truth. This gets in people’s hair every now and then, and I don’t see any point in lying in order to be acceptable. It just doesn’t seem to be a right way to go about things, particularly in the realm of science. I don’t think a scientist should tell a bunch of “scientific” lies in order to be an acceptable scientist. It doesn’t seem to me to be a sensible proceeding.
 
However, be that as it may, these various planets united into a very vast civilization which has come forward up through the last two hundred thousand years [and] is formed out of the fragments of earlier civilizations. No I can’t tell you accurately, exactly what these blokes are up to or where they’re from, but this isn’t quite germane to this galaxy. That’s the first thing you should know about it; it isn’t quite native to your track. You find a type of mental implanting and that sort of thing going on here in the last couple of hundred thousand years which are not native to your earlier track.

Now, this is all very important; it’s very important, because they have terrible problem. They have the problem of people who are native to this galaxy and aren’t used to this kind of thing, and they have the basic problem “How do you kill a thetan?” And that’s a terrible problem to men who have very, very guilty consciences and blood on their hands—a great problem.

Probably the best way to hide your overts is to give somebody amnesia you see (then they don’t know what you’ve done to them), and then tell the something else has happened. Well, this is a dramatization of a very crave intelligence, and that is what is going on here.

Now, the fellow who conforms to that society is in no vast trouble. Perhaps some bloke who has a military record against them, and that sort thing, might possibly (no matter what he did) find himself unable to satisfactorily conform. But the point is that their ideal is the conformist.

Now, these conformists are pretty weird, and the personnel of this particular society is pretty scummy, to say the least. Let’s—supposing you were in the last shambling wreckages of a red-light district: you’d have high toned personnel, compared to the personnel which makes up the other planet I’m talking to you about. High-toned personnel, much higher toned than the average run. They practice cannibalism. The stuff you get on race tracks once in a while some pc will run into race tracks and race-track drivers—the Roman-circus-type entertainment, don’t you see? All that kind of stuff—that’s all out of this zone and area. We’re still with that planetary system.

So, they specialize in the fellow who will conform. Now, he ordinarily is “woiker” [worker] who is content to draw wages and not do another single blessed thing—you know, never really get up, improve his lot, you see, and keep on plugging along somehow, or even slump into indigence. He’s still the choice of personnel. So this leaves the brilliant artist, the brilliant engines the manager, the genius, the criminal, the pervert, non persona grata.

And they sentence these people—the upper class (that is to say, the brighter gent) because they can’t control him and they’re afraid of him, and the lower class because it’s too vicious even for them—and they condemn the people to perpetual amnesia. “Dead forever,” they call it—the problem of killing a thetan—and wrap them up in mothballs and ship them down here and here we are. And that is the population of this planet.

All right. Here’s a population, then, of minimal workers; maximal managers, artists, geniuses, criminals and perverts. What you going to make out of this lot, huh?

Now, those are the blokes you’re talking to when you say “Add up the left-hand column of the ledger.” Well, of course, the artist says he could add up much more prettily. The guy who actually, in his own right, was a very skilled manager, he says he could devise a much better system—it’s true too; he probably could. If the bird is a criminal, he’s just sitting there trying figure out how he can add it up so he can short you. And there’s your zone operation; there is your response to 8C in trying to get an organization running. lt’s all alter-is, because the basic crime was nonconforming. The basic crime wasn’t being a criminal; the basic crime was not conforming.
 
Well, actually, this group has gone ahead and made up, up until recent times, a totally different civilization than the civilization which planted it here. In the last ten thousand years, they have gone on with a sort of a decadent, kicked-in-the-head civilization that contains automobiles, business suits, fedora hats, telephones, spaceships—quite interesting, but a civilization which looks an almost exact duplicate, but is worse off than the current U.S. civilization .

Therefore, you find the current IDS. and Western civilization rather restimulative, because it has moved up to look like the Marcabian civilization. It’s been moving up here rather rapidly. And now we’re at a point, a very high level of restimulation, because the automobile design, the train design, ship design (why, they’ve got ships in those areas, look just like the Queen Mary, you see?), and the fire engines and the stuff you do with men’s clothes particularly—all of these things are the same image. So you’re going into a highly restimulative era, because we’ve not had this before. See? We’ve been moving up through strata of civilization, but we hadn’t matched this one. And remember that this society at the present time looks dangerous; it looks very dangerous.

One of the highest crimes you could pull in that Marcabian society, probably even today, is income tax; you make one comma wrong and it’s “dead forever.” Sounds weird, doesn’t it? So, they got everybody paying income tax—awful restimulative. Probably nothing much wrong with income tax if it were administered as a tax, but it isn’t; it’s administered as a punishment, even on this planet today. Well, it’s one of their prime punishments in the Marcabian civilization.

All of this adds up to what? An era, going on right now, of highly restimulative associations in the civilization, and therefore a high-felt level of danger. People feel like they are in danger. Scientologists, every once in a while, hearing me talk like this, feel even more in danger. They say, “Boy, those guys are liable to land here tomorrow,” you know?

of course, I pull this every once in a while. Diana suddenly appeared on my right side last night while eating dinner (and I didn’t even know she was in the room, you see?), and just out of the corner of my eye, I saw a pair of white spots that looked like the spats a spaceman uses, you know? And for a split second I said, “Well, here they are,” you know?

But anyway, you should realize that the material on the between-lives area has been much more broadly circulated than any of our material is now, because it was laid down the line in all directions, to the most unlikely places (including Russia), and was contained in the book What to Audit [A History of Man] and other materials, and that was 1951 and ‘52. I consider that’s interesting, because let me point out to you, that’s eleven or twelve years ago and there hasn’t been a ripple. I just want to point that out to you as an interesting point.

No, gents of this character who have a system worked out this way would—the last thing in the world they’d do would be blow their own game, see? All they’d have to do is land one spaceship, and they feel like everybody would go into a convulsion of suddenly remembering everything. And they do, do you know? Any rumor of the men from Mars or something like that and this planet goes into a total convulsion.

They produced Orson Welles’s broadcast down in Quito (I think it was), Ecuador, and—the radio station there, I think a seventeen-story building or large building, or whatever the figures were on it—and mobs tore that building to pieces and killed seventeen people in the process. They practically slaughtered the staff of that radio station. In other words, they went mad.

So they know that great riots are attended by this, but a landing in force without any equivocation that it had been a landing of some type, or like this, would be liable to restore everybody’s memory. I think that’s what they feel. Whether this is true or not, we couldn’t worry less.

But here you are; that is the point. Here you are; that is this planet.

Every once in a while you get mad at government on this planet, when in actual fact you’re mad at the Marcabian government. And there’s a great deal of confusion. Every once in a while somebody will get awfully furious with an organization, very furious with an organization here on this planet, when they have actually identified the organization with the Marcabian civilization.

Now, you start hitting people here with restimulative materials of this particular type, and it restimulates a terrific unreality; it restimulates amnesia.

I have to ask you this: How hard do you have to hit somebody to bring about amnesia? Let’s take Joe out here and let’s just see how hard do we have to hit Joe in order to bring about amnesia on his part so he doesn’t know who he is, where he is, or anything else. How hard would we have to hit him? Boy, that’s pretty hard. It’s almost unbelievable force is used to handle a thetan and put him into this kind of condition. I’ve been hit with some awful heavy force in this universe without losing my mind or forgetting who I am, see? So it’s pretty heavy duress. And you restimulate that very easily by telling people things. It gets awful unreal.

But you would find, if you gave them the actual dope, that they would be far more in agreement with you than if you gave them just a touch of the dope, do you see? You won’t find the citizens of this planet very far in disagreement with what you’re doing. So, therefore, you’ve got some kind of an explosion going.

Well, these guys are not going to blow their own show, see. They’re not going to do anything peculiar about it. They’ve probably got us all sized up, if they know anything about us at all. They probably have some dim idea of what we’re doing, and saying, “Oh, yes. Ho-hum.” And give the devil his due: They might even say, “Well, hey, what do you know? Those guys might be producing a type of technology which we ourselves desperately need.” Look at that.

See, now, they know the problems exist. They couldn’t have had any decent solution, or they wouldn’t have taken the route to solution which they have. They are beings, too; remember that.

So when we look at all this: you are (1) organizationally handling people who are revolutionaries. They are nonconformists. Probably the common denominator of this planet is revolution. Probably the one thing you could always start on this planet would be a revolution, because it’s a state of perpetual revolution. Trying to hold any organization together of any kind whatsoever becomes almost impossible, because everybody you’re dealing with is a nonconformist.

All right. So far goes the civilization. There are just those few statements on the thing I thought you might find of interest.

We’re dealing now with what is an auditor?

You are handling, therefore, the roughest case that you could find in the universe, because the rehabilitation of the individual demands that you rehabilitate his knowingness. If his knowingness does not increase independently, he himself does not get well. You see, electrical charge on the case is simply a symptom that measures his knowingness. If he’s got too much charge, his knowingness is way down. See, that’s an indirect measure of the amount of knowingness of the individual.

And as the case moves along up the line, you get an odd factor. You get an odd factor: This case continues progressively to remember more. Now, one of the things the case recovers is picture memory, remembering by pictures. “I have a picture of, so therefore I was.” See, you can call that a picture memory and that goes from a terrific unreality on it down to a pretty good certainty on it. So a person at that stage of the game—an advanced stage of the game in inspecting his own pictures—can tell the difference between a false picture and an actual picture that has something to do, really, with him on his track. And as his knowingness increases, he can tell you where it belongs and what date it has and so on. In other words, he can spot it, bang! That’s an increased knowingness. It’s knowingness that is increasing all the way along the line.

Now, from picture memory, the individual graduates up to simply knowing.

Now, right now, you don’t have to get a picture of where you are living to know where you live. You see that? You don’t have to get a picture of your name to know what your name is. In other words, you know this. Well, so does knowingness increase as the case improves, and that knowingness increases up the line to a point where you know who you have been and where you have been, independent of any created evidence or cross-proof. You simply know. And that factor is a very slow factor to rise; it’s not a rapid factor. Under present auditing, yes, it is rapid, but that is all within a framework of hundreds of hours, don’t you see?
Now, I’ll give you an idea of this. For instance, I know—I know where I was and who I was, and know with good certainty, who I was and where I was in the last eighty trillion years. See, I know that; that’s not much of an argument with me. But the small details of that are liable to go fritter-fritter here and there. You know, what did I have for breakfast two trillion years ago? No. Nix, man. Nah. Did I even eat, you see? That sort of thing is getting pretty dim.

But now, over the top of that, which is an identity knowingness—which comes before a detail knowingness, you see; between your picture knowingness and your total knowingness is this stage of just knowing your identity—why, then, this detail knowingness starts to come up and follow in on this smaller basis. And one of your gains on it: you’ll know why you were here. You’ll have tangled with it in session and that sort of thing, and you’ll have picked data out of pictures. More and more you know why you were here. You know how you got here. You know what you were doing ten thousand years ago, do you see? You know what was happening 11,025 years ago, don’t you see? No pictures involved; you just know it.

And that is the restoration of the beingness of the person, and I have given you (in a very crude way here) a cycle of that restoration of beingness. His beingness returns to him gradually, bit by bit. Perhaps the lowest edge of it is something on the idea of “Maybe I possibly could know who I was,” you know? “Possibly I could know what I am doing here, or I might even be able to know who I am.” Just some sort of a feeling like one might be able to know. And that crawls up forward to a picture knowingness, and the unreality of those pictures at first is fabulous. So that anybody shows you any kind of a picture, man, any kind of a picture, that is—must be yours, and therefore yore must have been there.

They could show you a picture of an airplane falling apart and you at once say, “Well, I must have been in that airplane falling apart.” And later on you suddenly realize, “Hell, I’m looking at that airplane from two miles away. What am I doing looking at it from two miles away?” This dawns on you after a while. Your valence problem all of a sudden comes up; it hits you in the face, whether you’re coaxed to do it by the auditor or not. “I’m in that airplane, see, over there, two miles away,” see? “So, therefore, I must have had an awful fall,” see?

And it turns out, eventually—you’d begin to see this thing—you say, “Hey, wait a minute. I couldn’t have been in that airplane. It was somebody I shot down; maybe it’s somebody I did this with.” And then you’ll finally say, “Well, shucks. That thing is just a false picture. That isn’t my picture at all.” And then whatever picture of yours is holding it in suspense, that picture suddenly peels off the front of it like a badly painted chromo, and pshew! and your own picture is right behind it. And you say, “Oh, yerp! there I was,” and you’re in valence. That various cycle of recognition takes place in this picture line.

But what does it takes then, to bring about such a total amnesia? Let’s look at that: What does it take to bring about such a total amnesia? I was riding a spaceship down one day. Side gaskets of the tubes blew out on one side and wiped out the engine-room crew. I went in to drag them out just at the moment when the whole backblast of the rockets moved frontwards through the engine room, and got hit square in the face and managed to crawl out of the place. The ship went into the atmosphere, melted and crashed. And a couple of minutes or, oh, a couple of seconds after it hit, all of its fuel sent up and hit me in the face. And I lost my memory; I lost my memory. It took me quite a while, sitting down very quietly, to remember where base was. And I sat there and figured and figured and figured. Actually, I’d sent some people back to come and pick up the wreckage and so forth, and I was pretty foggy. And very shortly, I snapped out of it. You know, “of course!” you know?
But just how much force is force? Well, this is the type of scout craft which has the engines of a battle cruiser all packed into a very tight spot, you see, and all of it red-hot fuel. Cape Canaveral has got nothing like the amount of force one of those things can deliver, don’t you see? And to get all of that square in your thetan push twice, and get confused about where base was.... Got the idea?

And how much force has it taken to destroy somebody’s memory? It’s interesting. An interesting point, isn’t it? Well, that’s how much force you’ve been subjected to. Otherwise you wouldn’t have a case. I’m not trying to make you afraid of force. You get up to a point after a while as a thetan—forces, morces, who cares?

I had a funny feeling the other day. I didn’t quite feel up to diving into the sun. I just didn’t feel up to it; I didn’t feel it would be a healthy thing for me to do just now. I felt weak. And I felt the interactive forces of the sun, and I felt sort of drawn a little bit toward the sun, and I said, “No.” I sort of did a suppress and looked the other way. I just didn’t feel like taking a sun bath today. You get the idea, you know? You feel queasy. Too much force—too much force.

Well now, that force, of course, has to be combined with trickery, and the trickery is mostly scrambling somebody’s dates and giving them opposite, opposing items that can suspend in time, so that the scrambled dates will suspend in time. You get the combinations; you know them in our various technologies.

But let’s not move away from the point into the trickery of it; it does require the force. Force. How much force does it take to destroy the memory of a being? Well, that’s how much force an auditor is getting off a case. And of course you’d much rather get off unknowingness and oddities and oddball things; you’d much rather, because they’re easier to confront than raw force. And they’re easier for the pc to confront, too.

Therefore, you say, “What have you done?”

And your pc said, “Well, I had a hostile thought about you the other day. I thought you really should do your hair up in back.”

Oh, good—we’ve got a big withhold off. You get the gentle pat-a-cake that you will sometimes see in auditing sessions. The proper auditing response, of course, is “Well, thank you very much,” and so forth. And O/W is a bit different than other brands of auditing. You say, “What have you done, done, done?” And if you work very, very hard, you can get a done in all these thinks. You see, behind all these critical thinks is a done, is an actual action. And you can listen to critical thinks till the cow comes home, and you will never get anybody raised up the line, until you’ve found an actual action. That is the secret of all Sec Checking, and that is where people fall down in Sec Checking.

Now, why do they fall down? Well, it’s much easier to confront this random little think than it is the energy contained in a done. Do you see that?

Therefore, the mission of an auditor is the restoration of a person’s awareness, which includes his memory, his knowingness of himself and so forth. Restoration of awareness. What is holding down that awareness? What is holding down this knowingness? What is sitting on this knowingness? Well, you can say trickery and force, but it is force used with trickery, so that an individual will get an ARC break with force and then become the effect of force.

So you’re handling, in actual fact, somebody who has lots of ARC breaks with other beings, matter, energy, space, time and location and form. That is in direct definition: this person is out of comm, out of affinity and out of reality with matter, energy, space, time, location, other beings and form.

Now, that’s the pc. So what’s an auditor? So what’s an auditor? Well, an auditor has to be somebody who can release this tremendously involved force, somebody who can release this force from the pc. Obviously, if it’s a deranged force which is bringing about the amnesia of the pc, then the auditor, to get a return of memory of the pc, has to be capable of alleviating and removing that force. I mean, that’s simple. Simple. Elementary, my dear Watson.

On your E-Meter you have a tone arm. Force is removing itself from the case as long as that tone arm is in motion. And the wiggle-waggle of the tone arm as the pc is being audited tells you that force is being relieved from the case.

When you start to remove force that is aberrated by some trickery, your tone arm hangs up until the trickery is resolved—you know, wrong date or something like that—and your tone arm action is restored. All of these things are all cared for in the processes and technologies of auditing. But if that TA isn’t moving, you will never make an OT. That’s just it.

Now, you oddly enough do not have to run a process, sometimes, to get the TA moving. Providing the TA is moving—providing the TA is moving and you get good motion out of your tone arm—a person will eventually go Operating Thetan. Providing you can keep the tone arm moving, the person will eventually go Operating Thetan. If the tone arm is not moving, the person will not go Operating Thetan and the case may even deteriorate.

Let’s just run this case on and on. The case can run an engram, and so you keep running engrams, engrams, engrams, engrams, and the tone arm is stuck right up here at somewhere in the vicinity of 5.0. And there it sticks at 5.0, and you go on and audit and audit and audit; and there it is at 5.0, and there it is at 5.0, and there it is at 5.0, and there it is at 5.0. Uh-hah—you’re never going to make an Operating Thetan.

Now, if you run the right significances off the case and produce tone arm action, you make an OT much quicker. But you can get tone arm action without running the right significances. Get this syllogism here? And you can run the right significances without getting tone arm action. Oh, well, you can run R3R on somebody who can’t handle R3R, and you can run all the right significances and not get into tone arm action; you’re not going to make an OT.

Now, let me go over this again now and you’ll see where you sit with regard to a tone arm. If you just keep a tone arm moving on the pc long enough, regardless of how and what you’re auditing on the case, the case will eventually make OT. But if you run the right significances—if you run the right significances—and don’t get any tone arm action, you’re not going to make an OT. You got that now? This is terribly important.

Now, it might take thousands and thousands of hours just to randomly keep this tone arm moving on the pc. And lots of pcs can talk forever, you know, without getting any tone arm action. But if you could keep that TA moving, you’d eventually get OT. So you say, then, that a moving tone arm is slightly senior to the right significance.

Now, this is right down to bedrock on the subject of auditing. Your job is to keep the TA moving.

Now, what’s this TA doing? The TA is indicating the blowing off of force. That is a measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case —the amount of encysted force leaving the case. You’ve got a measure of it right there. It goes up and down, and it measures the amount of force which is going.

Now, of course, you don’t do this arithmetically or mathematically. I imagine someday, one of these days, why, we will. We’ll set up a project that measures some guy from scratch, right straight through to the end, shows the exact number of motions of the TA on every process or type of process that is run on the person, and these are all added together. And we say there’s this many hundred million ergs of energy were released, and at the end of that line we had an OT. But that is in essence what you’re doing; you’re blowing the force, because the more force is blown off the case the less amnesia the case has.

Does it make sense to you now?

Audience: Yes.

Force created the amnesia and you got to blow it to get rid of the amnesia. Now, there’s an interesting one-for-one.

Now, the amount of time in processing—the amount of time in processing —is enormously speeded up if you run the right significances, because you’re running the force off early track, and you start to get force release which you don’t see on the meter. Now, let’s not say that if the tone arm isn’t moving, it’s all okay; the tone arm is also moving when this happens.

I was sitting down in session one day, and I could feel energy masses disintegrating clear out to Arcturus. It sure wasn’t registering on the meter. If it had, there wouldn’t have been any more of an E-Meter here; there’d have just been charred wire. You get the idea? It was blowing off all over the place.

Every once in a while we’ll get a blowdown phenomenon. Well, when you see that blowdown, psheuX, pshew, pshew, pshew, pshew—I’ m talking about a repetitive down, see’ You call see that needle go, pshew, pshew, pshelu, pshew, pshew; it just keeps doing it, and your tone arm is drifting lower and lower and lower. You’re watching a remote force area blow up.

Now, if all this force blew up against the pc’s face and the pc’s body, he wouldn’t have any more body than a rabbit. It’s pretty hard to do research auditing and keep a body over you. It is, because you make one little mistake here and another mistake there and chew into a GPM someplace else, the next thing you know, there goes this and there goes that, and your right ear looks like a pretzel.

Anyhow, the point I’m making here is that your force measured through the E-Meter is only a part of the force which is blowing off the case. But if any force is blowing off the case, you have an additional movement of the tone arm. So if a tone arm is moving you’re blowing force, and if a tone arm is not moving you’re not blowing force. And that’s all you have to know about it.

Now, there are several significances that can keep a tone arm from moving, such as wrong time and an ARC-break situation where the pc is out of comm and a few things like this. But we’re not now discussing the no-motion tone arm; we’re discussing a motion tone arm.

Therefore it is of great interest to an auditor, then, to make that tone arm move. And to make it move all he can make it move. And your most fundamental method of making a tone arm move is not running a process. It is the basic definition of an auditor: n listener. The basic way to let a tone arm —get a tone arm move is to listen, and that is the fundamental of auditing.

Now, somebody could probably talk for a thousand years and never say the right things, and you wouldn’t get any tone arm motion. But, similarly, how many pcs talk and get tone arm motion from doing so and are shut up or cut off by the auditor? Ha-ha-ho-ho-ho. Now, there is an inhibition to blowing Clear. The auditor is not then doing his job; an auditor is setting up a barrier to blowing mass. And you’ll find out the pc winds up at the end of the session stupider. At the end of session, he can remember less than he could remember at the beginning of session.

Why? Well, you’ve done something with the force. You have moved it out of the bank and dumped it on the thetan’s head. Oh, it’ll destimulate; it’ll go out of restimulation and all that sort of thing.

The basic definition of an auditor is: to listen. He’s a listener. His basic job is to listen, not to restimulate.

All right. Now, we stand around and we say, “Well, the Marcabians are gonna get you tomorrow, man, and the size of the between-lives-area screen is 180 feet by 9 feet,” and so forth. And people sit there and they go dzzzz. That’s doing what? That’s charging them up, isn’t it? That’s charging them up. Well, actually, they talk it over, one with another, and usually blow the charge. It’s not a grave matter; it’s not a difficult matter at all. Their knowingness increases, and they feel all right about it and so forth. Well, we get away with that.
Why? Because we can talk to one another about it, that’s why. The only method of blowing reactive charge is by a communication line. There is no other method. By a communication line. I think that’s very interesting.

Here’s the auditor, and he’s supposed to listen. And the only way the pc can possibly get rid of the charge is blow it by the communication line.

Now, this doesn’t mean, oddly enough, that he’s blowing it at the auditor. He isn’t blowing it at the auditor. But that he can communicate it does cause it to dissipate, and it doesn’t hit either the auditor or the pc. If the auditor wants to get hit by the charge, he should put up a barrier to prevent it from blowing, and the pc has an ARC break; and the next thing you know, the auditor is hit by the charge. You can set up a situation whereby the auditor is hit by the charge, but only if he stops the charge.

How do you get rid of charge? Now, get what I just said. How do you get red of charge? I didn’t say how do you handle charge, restimulate charge or anything like that: just how do you get rid of it? Listen. That’s how you get rid of it. Listen. Elementary, my dear Watson.

Now, all therapies since time immemorial have consisted of listening— one way or the other. He is a sympathetic person, and people tell their troubles to him and very often feel a lot better. Well, all of that is very well, and you can add that up to a short-circuited look at auditing, but remember, this factor entered in: Was the pc, or was the patient, talking with tone arm action? Oh, that’s the difference. Or was the pc just mattering or was the pc lying or something? You let a pc sit there and lie, or a patient sit there and lie for a while, and you’re going to have one of the stuckest tone arms you ever wanted to see.

So that is the essence of the thing. An auditor is somebody who listens with tone arm action. That’s the difference. But remember, the fundamental of all mental activities was listening. Prayer is based on “God will hear me.” And if there’s no OTs around, who is going to hear him?

Actually, the Mama got so disgusted with this that he put all of his praying on automatic; he puts them on a little wheel. He can turn the wheel and it goes brrrrrrp and a thousand prayers go up, and he’s got that cared for. And I’ll bet you his tone arm, it didn’t move a bit.

So an auditor has the job, and auditing consists, of restimulating a charge (that’s the auditing command received by the pc) and then letting the pc blow the charge that is restimulated on the return communication line. Simple, isn’t it?

I’ll draw you a picture of this thing. You needn’t take a very accurate copy of this because this is an HCOB (I think 11 August), and I’m having it squared around. But I’ll draw you this thing. [See Lecture Chart] Here’s cause-distance-effect. That is a communication cycle. And here is the auditor and here is the pc. The auditor utters an auditing command, and it goes across this distance and hits something. What’s it hit—the pc? No, it hits the reactive bank, that accumulated mass of force which the pc is packing around that is always kicking his head in. And we get what is known as restimulation at this point. There we are; we get a restim. There’s the living lightning.

Pow! goes the auditing command. We know this guy is very sensitive to snakes, so the auditor says, “Recall a snake.” Pow! See? Bang! Well, now, of course if we’re in some kind of a weird situation whereby we’re fighting the pc, why, we’re not restimulating the bank. We’re just trying to get the pc to fight us or something like that; we’re not—it hasn’t anything to do with auditing. Just forget that. The auditor’s address actually is to the reactive bank, and he says, “Recall a snake.” Bow! Now we get a communication line: bank-distance-effect. And here we have the pc—thetan.

And the pc says, “Hey, what do you know! There is a snake in there.” And he goes: cause-distance-effect, and that’s the end of that. This line must follow in, to take care of the charge restimulated in your first line.

Cause-distance-effect: that’s the auditing command. Bow! There’s the charge. He recalls the snake. Boom! It starts to hit the thetan and the thetan recognizes it, knows what it is and imparts that information on his cause-distance-effect line, back to the auditor. And there goes auditing. Your cycle then occurs, and the charge is blown. And you see it reacting on the E-Meter as blown.

These are not all the communication cycles there are in an auditing cycle, but this doesn’t happen to be a lecture on that. I’m showing the principal action of these basic lines.

Now, remember that life is always giving him commands that restimulates things—here at E—on the pc. This is our old PTP and other things of that character. If you don’t believe that, put in your “since” mid ruds on the pc and see how superior your tone arm action is. You usually get marvelous tone arm action on “since” mid ruds unless the pc is protesting them and wants to get on with the session. And you get marvelous tone arm action.

Well, that’s just the restimulated charge that’s been slapped at him out of this mucked-up hank that he is gratuitously handed, in full restimulation with much added force, in every between-lives session he’s had with the little boys elsewhere. He’s trying to blow that charge. So he comes into session, and he sometimes will sit there and talk to you for quite a while; and the tone arm would just move and move and move and move. He’s getting rid of the between-sessions charges. Interesting, isn’t it?

You notice, after he’s talked for fifteen, twenty minutes sometimes, even somebody who has had a big upset on the thing, you’ve got in your “since” mid ruds (or you haven’t gotten in your “since” mid ruds), you notice that your tone arm. action dies down. And then suddenly, mysteriously, the pc is in session .

What’s happened? You’ve emptied this reservoir of restimulation which life has handed him, restimulated in him during the session—between sessions, you see? And you’ve emptied that thing out. Now, you want to know why your pc doesn’t go into session sometimes. Well, he’s just—he’s got a lot of restimulated charge that is all ready to fall back.

Now, you’ve got “Is it kinder to audit somebody one hour a week or twenty-five hours a week?” Well, of course there is no comparison, because in the one hour you can’t even get rid of life’s restimulative action in this reservoir here at all, so you spend that one hour indifferently getting rid of three days of the week which you’re trying to cover, don’t you see? And it’s a losing proposition. There’s a make-break point in auditing where a person has to be audited enough to get rid of this charge which is being consistently and continually restimulated. Got that?

Well now, this line here then—this lower line with the pc at cause answering this question back to the auditor, who in this case is at effect: then that line must have some seniority to the upper line. The auditor cause-distance-effect, then, is not quite as important as—they’re both terribly important—but is not quite as important as the line, cause-distant-effect, of the pc. In other words, between the seniority of the two lines (both in the same order of magnitude), you’ll find that the pc’s line to the auditor is slightly more important than the auditor’s line to the pc.

And in this line of cause-distance-effect to the pc—in that line and an inspection of that line—you will find all auditing failures, providing any process at all that we have has been run. In other words, if a case was loused up by auditing, we don’t inspect the process run as the first consideration. We inspect the tone arm as the consideration, because if you got good tone arm motion running that process, then that bottom line—the C-distance-E of the pc—was in.

Now, we’ve had processes for years. It’s true, our processes have to be very neat. They have to be very important. They restimulate the exact amount of charge that then blows the outer bank charge and so forth, and it’s all figured out very neatly. And on some pcs it’s almost impossible to get tone arm action; and you have to know what stops tone arm action; you have to know all of these various things.

But I’m now just talking about the fundamentals of auditing; and we inspect on a failed case the C-E (the C-distance-E) of the pc, not the process run. That’s the first thing we’d inspect: Was the auditor auditing?

Now, anybody could sit there and say, “Recall a snake, recall a snake, recall a snake, recall a snake, recall a snake, recall a snake.”

And the pc says, “Well, I . . .”

“Well, that’s all right. Just don’t bother with that. Recall a snake, recall a snake,” and all of a sudden the pc is da-da, da-da-da, you know? And he’s swamped.

All right. What happens in a case like that? Well, this is very, very easy. This restimulation, when the pc puts it on this line, goes bang! straight back at the pc. Got it? When that line goes out, where else can it go? It’s only got one place to go, and that’s the pc. So whatever you restimulate in a pc comes home on the pc, unless it is picked up on the reverse communication line.

Now, the penalties of this: the first symptom of the pc’s cause-distance-effect line—the first symptom of its disappearance is a dirty needle. You can go down any line of auditors who are busy auditing, right down any line of auditors, and watch their meters. You don’t even have to listen to them. You just see a dirty needle, bang! this line’s out: the auditor isn’t listening. The first definition of auditor is missing.

Pc is saying, “Well, that’s a snake. I . . . uh . . . Snake . . . uh . . . Well, there was one in a zoo urm-uh-uh-urm. I think it was a zoo—there was one in a zoo . . .”

The auditor said, “Okay! Thank you! Good! Good! Thank you! Thank you! Good! Recall a snake.”

And the pc said, “Well, um-stla-stlassle hum. Yes, yes.”

“Good! Good! Thank you!”

Got this nonsense? He’s just backing up all the charge of the process on the pc.

Ah, I see some of you have seen this happen. What occurs then? Well, frankly—frankly, in time, the C with the pc at cause-distance-effect line, in terms of time (the one here from the pc over to the auditor) may take upwards to a hundred times as much time in the session as the line C-E from the auditor. Oh! It only took three seconds to ask that question “Recall a snake.”

And the pc says, “Mmm “ and “Mmm. “ He finally says, “Was it in a zoo? I don’t know. Zoo?” and so on. What you’re seeing is identification turning into differentiation. You’re seeing force and charge blow off. The pc is inspecting this thing. And the tone arm moves, and it keeps moving, it keeps moving; and the pc says, well, he doesn’t know and so on. Was it a green snake or a blue snake? He’s not quite sure if it was a green snake or a blue snake and so on. He can’t recall a snake and so forth and so on. “Snakes . . . nightmare about a snake . . . but was that recalling a snake? Uh . . . if . . . I’m not quite sure on it. There was one down at the zoo when I was a little . . . Yeah, yeah, I got one. Um . . . yeah. Yeah, it was a green snake. Oh, yeah. Yeah. There was one. Yeah. Houston Zoo. Yeah. Got it. Got one: a green snake at Houston Zoo, when I was eight. Ha-ha.”

And you will see the cycle of the blowing force on your meter (tone arm) accompany returning knowingness on the part of the pc.

And the more you get that thing wobbling, the more positive the pc sounds. You just watch that, because that in itself is a little tiny proof of what I’m saying, is as you get the force off, the pc’s knowingness comes back. And you can see it in one cycle.

One auditing cycle: the pc says, “Snake? My God. I’d never . . . oh, a snake, what snake? Where? What? Why? I’ll . . . oh, so . . . sss . . . I’m . . . I guess there was. See, where do they keep . . . now, I just, why, uh . . . yeah . . . I was in a zoo at one time. Yeah, there are zoos. Let’s see, now . . .” so on and so on. “Zoos, and I. . . uh . . . must have been in a zoo sometime or another. Uh . . . zoos . . . When I was a little bo . . . Well, they used to take me to a zoo when I was a little boy. Uh . . . the . . . uh . . . zoo . . . uh . . . uh . . . the snake house. Oh, yeah. There must have been one in the snake house and so forth. Uh . . . that . . . yeah, they had a glass,” and so forth, see. “Yeah. Yeah, t used to be fascinated by some cage in there. Let’s see, I can. . . I got. . . uh. . . yeah. They—it was a glass-fronted ca—they had a green snake in there. Oh, I remember now. Yeah, I was eight. Yeah.” Bing, bang! He knows!

You’ve pulled him up all the way through the force that tells him he doesn’t know, up to a point where he knows. And you think it winds up with his simply seeing the picture clearly. No, no, he goes all the way through the picture stage, which I have just given you. You understand?

Audience: Yes. Yeah.

Now, these two lines have names, regardless of what they will be called on your—the comm cycles of your auditing cycles; they have numbers on the auditing cycle—but they have nice, colloquial names that you can remember very easily. And this is the whatsit line, and this is the itsa line. [See the Lecture Chart on page 123 of the Appendix.] Now, the whatsit line is from the auditor to the pc, and the auditor is saying “What’s it?” He says, “Recall a snake,” you know? “What’s it?”

And the pc says fumble, fumble, fumble, fumble. He’s looking for an itsa, see?

Itsa: “Green snake, Houston Zoo.” That’s the itsa. And you’ll see the tone arm blow down when he hits it, too.

So your tone arm, then, follows this pattern; your tone arm follows this pattern. Here is your tone arm here—two tone arms. And here is (this is already in HCOB August 4)—here’s your regular tone arm positions, and here is a nice solid arm, and here is a dotted arm; and here’s an arrow showing the motion as up from 3.0 to 4.0, and that’s a whatsit. You got that? We haven’t quite determined the low-tone-arm case, but I think they run in reverse. But that’s a whatsit; that’s the upward throw of the tone arm. That’s whatsit.

The pc says, “Let’s see, snake, snake, wha . . . what . . . what . . . what . . . sa . . . Recall a snake. It’s a . . . let’s see . . . wha . . .” He’s saying whatsa, whatsa, whatsa, whatsa, whatsa, whatsa, see? And you’ll see that tone arm go up. And then he’ll get a little bit of an itsa, and you will see the tone arm go down. And your tone arm, dotted at 4.0, falling to solid at 3.0, and that’s itsa.

And you, frankly, can monitor a pc’s tone arm on one question like mad. He has an ARC break with somebody, and he sees that there’s some difference— some similarity—or he thinks maybe he knows somebody who looked like the person he had an ARC break with. This would be a research test. See, he sees— he knows now already that there’s some similar incident earlier, that he’s got this person associated with somebody he shouldn’t have it associated with—got an identification going. And you say, “Well, what reminded you”—well, you don’t even know who that earlier person is, see?—but “What reminded you (in the person you had the ARC break with), now, what reminded you of the person in the past?” See? Whatsa. And you’ll see that pc’s tone arm go right up. You say, “Whatsa?” Tone arm goes up.

The pc says figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure— “Was it his . . . was it his tie, his shirt? His . . . uh . . . it’s a . . . uh . . .uh . . . uh . . . tie, shirt. Uh . . . yup . . . uh . . . Or is it . . . there some way he held . . . I think it was the way he must’ve held his head.”

Then you’ll get an itsa. And it’ll go right down: “Yes, just think it was the way he held his head.”

And you say, “Well, was there anything else?” Whatsa? And it’ll go right up. It goes right into the whatsit.

And the pc says, “Well, it could’ve been . . . it could’ve been the way . . . way he . . . ah . . . way . . . the . . . he’d stand there the kind of clothes he was wearing.... Must’ve been the kind of clothes he was wearing.” Itsa. And down comes the tone arm.

And you actually can sit there as an auditor and control the motion of the tone arm. You can control it. You can say “Whatsa?” and every time you give him a whatsa, you’ll see it goes up. And make sure he gives you a full itsa. And then feed back in again another fragment of the whatsa, see? And up goes the tone arm again. And he gives you the itsa, and down comes the tone arm again. And you can just sit there and call your shots. (That’s a research project; you normally wouldn’t handle comm like that.)

But you’ll see it in running almost any process. When you say whatsa, up she goes. And you—he says itsa, and down she comes. You say What’s it?” to the pc, and you get the up arm. That charge is restimulated and unresolved, and that high tone arm shows you restimulated but unresolved charge. It’s sitting there in the bullpen; it’s sitting there in the reservoir, and it’s going to hit somebody or something. And the pc plows through this charge that’s been restimulated here, and he puts it over on this line and he says itsa. And if he’s permitted to give you the itsa line, then the charge channels right—doesn’t hit the auditor; it just disintegrates, see? And there it goes. Boom! It’s gone. You see that?

The crudest auditing cycle is the whatsit-itsa; whatsit-itsa; whatsit-itsa. And of course it doesn’t take any time to say whatsit, and sometimes takes quite a while to say itsa. So, consequently, this line is much more prone to be out than the upper line—than the whatsa line.

Definition of an auditor: to listen.

Now, you’re handling a case: if you knew Scientology in the Galactic Confederation at this particular moment, man, they’d practically put you on a throne, see? Cases! Well, boo. You take some of the old Route 1, and you say, “All right. Be three feet back of your doll. All right. Be on planet A, planet B. planet A, planet E, planet A, planet B. Got it? You’re getting along fine. Planet A, planet B. Good. OT. Thank you.”

Guy would say, “Gosh. You know, this is terrific”—provided you listened. Guy’d say, “This is terrific. I feel much better now. I don’t see why I have to be pinned in that doll’s head. I’m going around getting my sergeant’s stripes as an OT.”

The situation would be very different from what you’re operating with. The character of the pc you’re operating with is operating under an enforced and continuously-each-life-reinforced amnesia. And if the course of the case upward is to knowingness, think of what stands in your road auditing an Earth case. And if you were up around in some other locales, it would be about the same difference as right now auditing an Earth case; you would sort of feel odd as—how the hell do you audit an ant? Do you see? Well, it’d be that same gap between an Earth case and an ant, as a case of more or less a free thetas out there in space (who doesn’t have your technology) and an Earth case. Do you see that?

So I can feel for you, trying to get wins on the cases you’re trying to get wins on, but you should recognize what type of case you’re trying to get wins on and should recognize where your line is breaking down. Now, I have never been able to describe this to you as succinctly as this. I myself wasn’t making much of this mistake; it didn’t call too much to my attention what it is, but it must have been there if the original word which identifies you, auditor, means listen—must have been there all the time, well understood.

Now, what’s the course of having that line out? What’s the source—course of it? Here’s, first, (1) dirty needle; (2) stuck TA; (3) ARC break. One, two, three—as inevitable as nonsense from Washington. One, two, three—just like that. If your pc has a dirty needle, a stuck tone arm is incipient on that case. It’s liable to happen any minute. Man, you’re already three-quarters of the way over the cliff! In fact, the beginning of the piercing, dwindling scream is about to sound. And your ARC break will follow immediately afterwards: bypassed charge.

The most fruitful source of bypassed charge, then, is the itsa line—just it. And that’s all, that line.

That is the most fruitful source of bypassed charge, then: Restimulate an engram, don’t let the pc tell you about it; restimulate an engram, don’t let the pc tell you about it; restimulate an engram, don’t let the pc tell you about it; restimulate an engram, don’t let the pc tell you about it; restimulate an engram, don’t let the pc tell you about it. If you haven’t got an ARC break by that time, the pc must have been dead to begin with!

Do you see that simply by filling up this reservoir full of charge and then not putting in the itsa line—not letting the pc tell you all about it—you’re bypassing charge? This is elementary.

That gives you a change in your auditing-training program at Level W. At Level W we’re going to teach an auditor to be an auditor. We’re going to teach them to listen before they restimulate anything. Life restimulates quite a bit of charge. The auditor should at least be able to handle that.

Level I—Scientology I auditing—will consist, then, mainly of listening. You see his TA stop moving, you must have seen earlier a DN and not noticed it. So therefore, if you see a DN, you know that your TA motion soon is going to cease. It may not be the exact next session; it may take two sessions for it to really stop. Two sessions of the same kind of treatment, see? And you know, that’s going to wind up in an ARC break.

These people who are ARC-breaky pcs are not ARC-breaky pcs; there is no such thing. There are only auditors who don’t listen. It’s very simple. It’s very elementary.

I don’t wish to give you too much stress on this, because you’re liable to go completely overboard and just sit there and let your pc do nothing but talk. But the only crime that you can commit on letting the pc talk—the only crime you can commit—is if the pc doesn’t move his tone arm by talking. Pc is talking for a while, and you see that the tone arm isn’t moving: Well, you go on letting him talk forever, you’re foolish, because the case is getting no place.

And this question will come up: The pc is motivatoring, motivatoring, motivatoring, nattering, nattering, nattering. First question that was thrown at me. We had a student here one time that only talked in motivators—didn’t talk English, talked motivators. And the question was asked of me, “Well, what if we just let that person talk?” Well, in the first place, she never would have gotten any TA as a result of all this talk. And the other thing—she was already in an ARC break! Do you follow that? You don’t let people talk when they’re in an ARC break: you find what the bypassed charge is. Because your itsa line has already gone so far out that it won’t put itself back in.

So you say “When shouldn’t you let a pc talk?” No TA action or the pc already in an ARC break. The time [thing] to do, then, is act.

And the no TA action: Well, let’s give them another auditing command or something like that, but that normally isn’t what’s wrong when you get stuck TA in that particular fashion. If you’re doing ARC breaks of some kind or another like “Recall ARC breaks,” and the pc has had an ARC break in present time with themselves having recalled an ARC break in the past, that sort of thing can happen, see? Or they’ve suddenly bypassed and haven’t answered fifteen or twenty ARC breaks. They haven’t given them to you; they threw them all away, suppressed them. That sort of thing is happening. Something weird has gone on in the session, and you suddenly cease to get tone arm action. Now, the pc could sit there and talk forever, and wouldn’t get him out of it. No, it requires the auditor to locate what bypassed charge, what has happened here? He has two remedies for this: he has the ARC Break Assessments and he has his big mid ruds. He has ways of getting people out of this mess.

But that is your basic problem. We’re not talking about the ramifications of it. Let the pc talk and let him talk with tone arm action. And let them talk as long as they want to talk and let them talk as long as you can get tone arm action by their talking. Where did you get so industrious? If I could sit there for two and a half hours with the pc telling me all about early track engrams and it’s this way and that way, and I’ve got a TA that is banging here from 2.5 to 4.25, back and forth and back and forth, I’m afraid I would just sit there. And I know some of you sit and acknowledge. Oh, no. I wouldn’t short that off. I’d just sit. there and look intelligent I wouldn’t acknowledge a thing—no interim acknowledgments.

Once in a while they look up and they seem brighter about it, so I look brighter and nod. What do you want to work so hard for? You realize that we’re talking now about Case-Level-II auditing, because that is Case-Level-II auditing. But all you’d have to do is let the pc start talking about his backtrack and get tone arm action and never give an auditing [command]. Start and end sessions; that’d be all there was to the auditing session. See, it’d get that elementary. Well, of course, it can get that elementary all the way down. But the worse off they are, the more their attention has to be directed, the more particularized the process has to be. The way to bypass charge is not let the pc tell you.

Now, there’s the basic anatomy of what you’re doing, and it should make an awful lot of sense. And if you were to teach somebody just to listen (Scientology I, see)—you say, “Well, you should go listen to people’s problems” —they’ll have some weird little wins. You’re not even teaching them to run an E-Meter, see; just to let somebody talk to you. Then eventually, he’ll find out that there’s talk and talk. There’s the talk that moves E-Meters and the talk that doesn’t. By that time they’d be a pro. Learn to listen, and you’ve got it made.

You got this all wrapped up and figured out and you see it and you got it taped now?

Audience: Yes. Yeah.

Well, watch those DNs and get that itsa line in.

Thank you very much.

THE ITSA LINE

A lecture given on
20 August 1963

How are you today?

Audience: Good. Fine, thank you.

All right. This is what?

Audience: 20 August.

20 August A.D. 13. Thank you.

Well, this is a lecture on the itsa line. About time. The itsa line. Why is it called the itsa line? The auditor says whatsit? and the pc says itsa. It is the pc’s communication line from pc to auditor. And it isn’t necessarily pursuant to the auditor’s whatsit; it is sometimes pursuant to the pc’s whatsit—pc very often puts in his own whatsit.

Okay. There are numerous communication lines between the auditor and the pc and the aggregate of these make up what you call the auditing cycle. The auditing cycle is made up of several communication lines. A communication line is cause-distance-effect. I call your attention to Dianetics 1955! for the full definition of a communication line. What is a communication: intention, attention, duplication at the point of effect, and so forth.

All those are quite important and technically accurate, but what you’re mainly interested in is cause-distance-effect. Cause-distance-effect is a communication line. A communication line is not cause-distance-effect, cause-distance-effect—that’s two communication lines.

Now, a communication line can be very faint, and one of those that you’ll find out routinely on an auditor is the attention line: line 1 minor; line 1 minor, the attention line. And that is just consistently out. But as I say, there are numbers of these and we’re not particularly going into them. That’s the first line. That’s get the pc’s attention; how do you get the pc’s attention to cause the pc to put his attention on the auditor? And that line is the one that is put in.

Now, that line itself can be complex and become two lines or three lines. Pc sitting there and he’s saying, “Gob-gob, walla-walla,” something, and the auditor wants to get his attention on him. See, it has to have attention on the auditor. Now, the auditor can’t really give an auditing command or do anything with his command unless he gets his attention line in. Now, that can be done very crudely. You can drop the E-Meter, you can cough loudly in the pc’s face, tip over your chair, get angry. There’s, in essence, numbers of ways to get this line in very, very wrong. And the line has to be put in, however, and very often you find a pc fogging around at the beginning of session and his attention is not on the auditor, it’s really not on his case, it’s not on anything you’re trying to do, and so forth. Well, how do you get it there? Well, one of the ways of getting it there is, having an attention line already extant, you then convert it to an itsa line.

Now, this is the whole trick, because there’s another attention line. There is attention on what, see? And this looks like another attention line—it’s actually 1 minor. It just isn’t putting the attention on the auditor, it’s putting attention on something else. And this is a little trick I used to do that used to baffle everybody in ACCs. They used to get baffled, and everybody would drop his jaw and look at me dully when I would try to get them to do this—and it’s been wholly unsuccessful—but by dividing down the auditing cycle into these various communication lines and component parts, I will bravely take another crack at it.

It’s slippy. I know if I give this to you, it’ll become a repetitive-command process, which it isn’t. It’s Hippy, that’s all—is you just very adroitly, without really putting the pc’s attention on anything except what his attention should be on, just flick the pc’s attention over to what it should be on. I’ll give you an idea.

Pc is saying, ‘Oh, I just . . . just . . . just can’t stand . . . can’t stand these uh . . . these wild parties. Just can’t stand them. Had one last night and just can’t stand them, and so forth. There’s just too much . . . too much music and everything. And I’ve got an awful present time problem, because this guy’s— this . . . this . . . this girl’s b . . . b . . . boyfriend came over and wanted to pop me in the eye because I was getting too familiar, and it’s terrible.” And present time problem, present time problem, present time problem.

And you know you’re running the GPM “to be sexual,” see? This you know about the case. This is—this I’m giving you, also, is the itsa line.

Hey, we’re getting a nice storm tape here. We’ll cut the storm off of it, and so forth, and sell it. They go great in the Middle West. They love storm tapes. It reminds them of home.

I had a green tornado one time in Kansas—never been back since. Twenty-five-pound blocks of ice were falling out of a pea-soup-green sky, and the visibility had dropped down to about fifteen feet—bright green. Never quite recovered. Was impossible. Couldn’t have happened—but it did.

Now, your pc’s attention being all over the confounded place, the auditor sits back and says he’s going to put in the itsa line. Now, usually by this— unless he is well trained and has this data, and so forth—this means he’s going to sit back and leave the pc’s attention totally uncontrolled. The itsa line, when you first start giving it to people, is just never doing anything but listen. And that’s because people think it is simply a communication line, and it isn’t. But we will go on to this in a moment.

Now, therefore this pc is running on and on and on about this party—and this is slippy auditing. I can sit and do this by the hour. Pc never finds out about it, and there’s no command process being run and everything else, and tone arm moves like mad, and so forth. It requires a certain estimation of effort, you understand? And I actually, years and years ago, despaired of getting anybody to control attention that lightly. This is another effort to do so, see?

So, you say—he’s going on and on, “And this guy came over and he almost bopped me, but this was a nice-looking girl, and so forth. And t had a terrible problem because of my wife, you know, and so on, and . . .” Here we go, see?

Now, the auditor who is not well informed and who is not well skilled just sits back and listens to this whole thing. Now, to do anything about it suddenly is to put line I minor in on the auditor. Clank! And boy, the pc will ARC break, see, because it’s a sudden shift of attention. So the whole thing is the skill by which you can take line 1 minor and flick it over onto what you were doing or want to do in the session—the skill with which you can do this.
 
And, believe me, this is a skill maneuver. And when you are really skilled at this, you could almost sit down and run a full auditing session, and even a casual observer would think you were simply listening to the pc, which you weren’t at all; you were actually directing the pc’s attention very closely. The pc was talking exactly about what you wanted that pc to talk about and nothing else, and the pc never realizes that their attention has been grooved on it.

Now, that would be the tremendous difference between psychoanalysis listening and Scientology auditing. You see, these things could look quite alike.

The psychoanalyst (1) did not really know what to direct anybody’s attention to, see? He didn’t know the anatomy of the bank. He thought if he could direct somebody’s attention to sexual incidents in early childhood, he had it made. Well, now, a pc—a pc—actually follows in his case, at any given moment, the least-charged line. A pc will always follow the least-charged line. Get this. Get this good, because that’s one of those remarks that goes by in the night and you wonder someday—you’re sitting there auditing somebody and you don’t know what to do, and so forth. And it’s one of those things that if you knew that well, you’d know exactly what to do. He always follows the least charged line with his tone arm action. If you’re going to get tone arm action, it is on the least-charged aberrative line—not the least-charged thing he could talk about, but the least-charged aberrative line. The tone arm action exists on the least-charged aberrative line at any given moment in a case progress— always the least-charged aberrative line.

Now, give you what I mean by that. Let’s take dynamics. You’ve got eight dynamics you could audit on the pc. The third dynamic is what the pc is always coming up with. Well, if you kept the pc on the third dynamic, you know, you would get tone arm action because this happens with the pc to be the least-charged line. You got it?

Now, the other lines do not give tone arm action, and this does not mean they are not charged; it means they are overcharged. There is too much charge on them. Got that? So you’re always trying to snake through the mine field on the least-popping firecrackers to get your tone arm action. You got that? You want little ones that’ll just tingle his feet; you don’t want those that’ll blow his legs off. You understand?

Well, the mind is so regulated and safety-valved that it will not release charges which the pc considers over his ability to tolerate. Now, an auditor can actually punch these charges into view; he’s got all the materials in his hand. And therefore he could actually throw the pc into areas which are overcharged areas to be run—the areas are overcharged.

The result of an overcharged area is a stuck tone arm. Stuck tone arms have many peculiarities and particularities. You can say that if you want to really get tone arms moving you have to get the GPMs on a case run; that’s the most likely to give you tone arm action. It’s the most aberrative in terms of time. You can say a lot of things about tone arm action. You say tone arm action sticks because of time—these things are all true. But with regard to charge, what you really want to know with regard to charge is that in the presence of too much charge—too much charge—the TA ceases to operate. TA action ceases when you have too much charge.

That doesn’t say that you couldn’t bleed it, that you couldn’t work your way around it, that there aren’t means of getting off the charge anyhow, and all that sort of thing. But when you see a TA ceasing to operate, and ceasing to act, then you have entered an area of too much charge—particularly on an extremely high or an extremely low TA. Do you follow that, now? Too much charge.

It’s not because there’s nothing there to run; it’s because there’s too cockeyed much there. See that? And if you don’t get tone arm action, then the charge that holds the significances and ideas, postulates, cognitions, and that sort of thing, in place—just the corny, electrical charge, you understand, no other significance connected with it—this thing packed up and held in facsimiles, masses, all of this sort of thing, won’t, then, let the case advance. And you get no case advance in the absence of tone arm action. That is—that’s it! I mean, there aren’t any ands, ifs, areas or buts about it. No tone arm action: no case advance!

I don’t care if you erased a somatic, I don’t care if the pc has ceased to have lumbosis, I don’t care about any of these things—because you’re not auditing a body. As far as this pc is concerned—no tone arm action: no case advance.

Now, can you worsen no tone arm action? Yes. You can bring about no needle action on top of no tone arm action. Hu-hu-hu-hu. And if you insist on running a pc without tone arm action, you soon will begin to see it expressed over here in the needle, which will get tighter and tighter and tighter. And after a while everything locks up. And then if you use real desperate measures, why, you can just freeze the pc into something that’ll feel to him like solid rock.

The longer you run a case without tone arm action, the more you will freeze the case into no tone arm action. And the more the case is frozen into no tone arm action, the less chance you have of getting charge off by any means. You see this? I mean, you’re walking away from the point of resolution. The further you go with no tone arm action, the less likely you are to fortuitously produce some. So it’s not just “Well, he’s running without tone arm action,” and brush it off, you see? It’s “Oh, my God! He’s running without tone arm action! Whew. Huh. Hey, hey, hey! Bo-bo-bo-bo! No tone arm action! Hey, hey, hey, hey! No tone arm action. Get some tone arm action. Ha-ha.” You know? It gets that type of emotional response, you know? Not “Well, he’s running without tone arm action, so he isn’t getting any better,” and so on, see?

Guy being run without tone arm action is somebody you’re watching go down the big toboggan. And the longer this goes on, the harder it’s going to get to get tone arm action.

Now, the most likely way to get tone arm action on any condition, any case or any anything, is getting in the itsa line. This has processes connected with it. These processes are designated Routine 1C (C for communication). Routine 1C: this is the soft-touch process. This is the process that will be given to Scientology I auditors, and after you’ve studied it and used it a year or two, you’ll find out that there’s a lot more to know about it.

It is at once the clumsiest use—it’s the workhorse, you see? You say, “Well, you’ve got two processes to make an OT. You’ve got 3N, you got R3R.” No, you’ve always got three processes. See, if you’ve got two like that, then you’ve always got one more, and that’ll always be the itsa line, or 1C, see? This is the workhorse. This is the workhorse.

And, yeah, somebody in a co-audit; yes, sure, somebody in a—doing a book-auditing job; yeah, somebody, some student in the academy; yeah, these people, oh, yes, these guys will be able to make progress with this thing. But before he’s gone very long in the academy and before he’s done very much auditing, he’ll all of a sudden begin to believe—he’ll do one of two things: either, “Well, I just get tired of just sitting there listening to him talk and talk and talk and talk, you know? I just net tired of this. So this itsa line isn’t so good.” See? He didn’t even know what it was in the first place, see? Or he will all of a sudden begin to realize that there is a certain deftness required here or one will just continue to sit and listen and listen, and the pc goes on and talks and talks.

Well, look, they talked for five years in psychoanalysis without getting anyplace. See we don’t know that they had tone arm action, but we sure know they didn’t get anyplace. They did. They did—pardon me, pardon me. That— I’m maligning the boys. I’m maligning them. They got careful. Their did get someplace.

Well, look-a-here. You learn, then, that an overcharged case can most easily be bled down by the itsa line, and you’ll restore tone arm action. So the best way to restore tone arm action to any case that has become overcharged through being run in the wrong departments is getting in the itsa line. Now, that’s your base process. You can restore: one arm action, no matter how badly the case has been jammed up, if you are clever in handling the itsa line.

Now, when I say “itsa line,” and when I say “clever,” yes, they’re very definitely joined together. Clever. It is not a process; it’s a cleverness. And the biggest trouble you have anything with is (as we’ll come back to this) line 1 minor. Why put the attention on the auditor when all you’ve got to do is shift it slightly in the pc?

This guy is saying, “Well, and so forth, and we had this big . . . big hassle at this party and I . . . this . . . my wife bawled me out, and everybody bawled me out and so forth. And I’ve got this terrible present time problem. I got this awful hangover and I’m having an awful time in this session,” and so on and so on and so on. Yeah, under a long series of runs you could probably take apart this present time problem, but you were running on the pc the goal “to be sexual.” The pc is having trouble with being sexual, that’s for sure.

Well, that’s where the cleverness is, is was there anything that happened —you know, is what the pc’s talking about got anything to do with what you were doing, see? So, of course, the adroit question practically walks up and hits you in the head. The adroit question is. . . Pc takes a long breath and momentarily he isn’t going on any further. Just momentarily, see? He actually hasn’t run his communication line out terribly, but he’s just been floundering, you’re getting minimum tone arm action. And you say, “Did our last session have anything to do with this?”

“Oh. Let’s see, what the hell were we doing in the last session?”

“Well, I don’t know. Just review what we were doing.”

“Well, let’s see, uh . . . so and so on, so on, then we had an ARC break and we were doing something or other and uh . . . so on. We were running out some kind of items; there’s this backtrack and there’s this stairs or something there. Let me see, now. I . . . I’ll . . . I’m getting’ it now,” and so forth. “Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, we were running . . . uh—you see, I . . . I really can’t get anywhere near this, I’m so worried about my present time problem—but uh . . . we were uh . . . we were urn . . . urn . . . running some goal, some goal, some goal, urn . . . some goal, something along this line and so on. Oh, yes, ‘to be sex’ Say, what do you know! (sigh) Yeah, I sure do have a lot of trouble with . . . with this thing ‘to be sexual.’ I ha . . . Yeah, I sure do. Uh . . . yeah, I . . . I have a lot of trouble with that.”

“Well,” you say, “well, what items did we have there, right toward the last?”

“Well, I think we arrived at this point on the line plot, and uh . . . I think it was . . . I think it was . . . uh, ‘absolutely’ uh . . . No, it was ‘nix’ . . . uh, yeah. Well, all right. There we are.” And you’re starting to see your tone arm move and your needle start to twitch.

And he never knew what happened. Magic, man, magic! It’s gently taking line 1 minor, without actually putting it on the auditor, and putting it back to the subject of the auditing. And, you see, there’s no process that you could announce that will do this, because the auditing is tremendously variable and the pc’s worries and concerns are fantastically agglomerate.

Now, sometimes, the pc has legitimately had a present time problem and something catastrophic has occurred between sessions, something like this is just using this factor for just a present time problem—and it’s something way off. And the only thing you can do is to keep flicking that attention line Flick—it’s really not a whatsit line; your whatsit’s already in, you see? And you just keep moving it around till the pc will ventilate the PTP that he’s worrying about.

Now, the crudest—but still acceptable—example of this is simply “Tell me about it.” See, that’s crude. See, that’s something like we’re going to build house so we pile up some bricks. That’s crude. That’s about as adroit as the cow doing the twist, see? But nevertheless, it’s functional. You do get some motion. I couldn’t forbear to milk that gag.

Now, so there’s the pc, see? And the pc can’t get his mind on what you’ doing because something else has happened. And this something else is re worried, and maybe it’s worried down to the level of grief charge, or something like this, see? Well, all you can do is move this little attention line around onto things that’ll give him itsas. And you can cut it down from—well, actual failing to relieve the situation, that’s how bad it can be, see? You just didn’t really relieve his problem, or you relieved it somewhat, or you—next gram is you spent the session making him feel better about that present tin problem. See, we’re well into the acceptable band, if we’ve got to be. Or, N handled it in the first two hours of the session, or we handled it in the first ho of the session, or we handled it in the first fifteen minutes of the session. All that difference of time has very little to do with the seriousness of the problem it has everything to do with the cleverness of the auditor—without putting t attention line on himself, without cutting the itsa line—adroitly shifting the little attention line there to this and that.

“Well,” the person says, “but uh . . . this . . . But I don’t see . . . I don see why we had to fight half the night after we got home. I told her I just was attracted by blondes, and so forth, and she just wouldn’t listen,” and so forth.

And the auditor says, “What have you found out about arguments like that with your wife?”

“Well, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa.”

“Well, that’s fine. All right. Now, how do you feel about this problem now?”

“Well, the problem is all right.”

Well, he’s still a little bit fluttery, so, “Well, let’s review now what we were doing on something or other.” Got the idea?

“Well, we were doing so-and-so and, well, you know what we were doing well as I do.”

“Well, all right, yeah, probably. But I may not have full records here this. There might have been something that came up during the session, something like this, or between sessions you might have thought of something else.”

“Oh, yes! I did, as a matter of fact.” You’re away, see? Got the idea?

Actually, it’s just about as skilled as building a watch, but because there’s no apparent skill there, don’t you see, it gets slightly into disrepute. People watch a session in which this is occurring, and they really never even hear auditor say anything, see? And the pc never really hears the auditor; anything, because the attention line isn’t “All right, now. All right. Okay. right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I. . . er got all that you’re talking about. Now, right. Now we’re going to give you . . . going to give you the next . . . next . . . next auditing command—the next . . . the next . . . the . . . the next auditing command. You got that now? Got that now. All right. Here are, now. All right. Do birds suffocate? Okay? Got that now? Do birds suffocate?” Now, you’ve restimulated some charge. I won’t say what charge you’ve restimulated.

See, now that can grade on down from just too much, you see. That can grade on down to “Do suffocating birds have anything to do with this?” “Were there any birds suffocating in that?” See? To “Well, do you think your processing has bettered this situation?” Now we’re really getting feather-light, aren’t we? Pc hardly heard you say it and neither would anybody else, you see?

“Well, let’s see. Let’s go over what we’ve covered so far in auditing. Well now, you had a couple of cognitions in the last session there that had something to do with this. Have you had any other cognition with regard to goals, and so forth—these implanted goals?” This is getting awful adroit, see? You’ve actually got something he’s already been talking about, and you put it in by the duplication factor. You duplicate what he has been talking about and you just pull his itsa line a little bit further and put it on something, see?

I’ll give you an idea of doing this. He says, “Well, auditing, auditing. I get these awful headaches in auditing and that sort of thing.”

“Well, have you particularly gotten them while we’ve been running goals?”

Few sessions later—he’s forgotten all about these headaches, and so forth—we’re having a hard time getting his itsa line in: “How about these headaches? Are they troubling you as much now? When we run these goals and that sort of thing, how are these headaches?” Sounds merely solicitous. It isn’t, it’s a itsa line, see? See, you’ve taken a dead-ended communication line someplace back down the line and you’ve repeated its subject, so therefore you have made a duplication, so you’ve created a communication line. It’s all very technical. And the person’s attention goes back onto this and he has to make a comparison. He has to say his headaches are better or worse or there’s no change, and while he’s doing this he has to put his attention on GPMs, or whatever you’re trying to run on it.

And you say, “Well, with this last one that we were running in the last session—the last one, ‘to be nutty,’ ‘to be crazy in the head,”’ so forth, something like that, “how were the somatics in the head getting along there? Were they turning on and off, and so forth, while we’ve been running that?”

“Oh, well, you shouldn’t really remark on this, because I had them pretty well off.”

“Well, what item did they go off on?”

“Well, they went off on uh . . . Well, I really don’t know. Someplace in the first part of it. Um . . . urn . . . urn . . . I had an item in there . . . is . . . uh, ‘idiotably . . .’ I think it was ‘idiotably nutty.’ Yeah. Yeah, that was the one. Hey, I got that headache again, you know?”

You say, “Well, give me ‘nix idiotably nutty.”’ You’re away, see? See? He doesn’t know what hit him, see?

It’s moving that attention line adroitly, adroitly, see? Adroit. With the little pinky—the little finger, you know—raised just right on the teacup, see?

Now, you’ll see an auditor who really hasn’t got much feeling for it, and no tools and so forth, why, he’s got this teacup with both paws wrapped around it, you see? And you’ll see somebody else has poured the tea into the saucer with both paws wrapped around the saucer and inhaling at a very large number of decibels. See? So, that you’ll see this in all of its shades of gray, you see, down to outright black.

But before you understand anything much about the itsa line, you have to understand that there is such a thing as an attention line—line 1 minor—and unless you can handle that attention line slightly, adroitly, greatly, smoothly . . . You’ll curse yourself sometimes. Even the best of an auditor will say, “Well, let’s get to running this GPM now,” or something . . . Cut your throat, you see? You spend the next fifteen minutes getting out of this hole. See, it was just too much in the wrong place, see, and it just smashed everything up and the pc busy explaining to you that he is eight thousand light-years from that GPM and his attention wasn’t on it, you know?

You find yourself making these mistakes. Don’t knock yourself in the head and say “Well, I’m terrible at this” and run a big make-guilty on self because you don’t handle this well always. Just, those times you have been clever, pat yourself on the back. That’s the one to pay attention to. I’m not kidding you because . . . Well, I gave a session last night and I dropped—three times. Or I dropped a handful of-anvils on the floor—shook up the session most interestingly—and another time I put off a whole chain of firecrackers in the midst of the auditing table, and another time practically ran the mains volts through the cans, see? But that was three, see? That was three. But there was two hours’ worth, and probably something on the order of 150 that were handled, you know, with such aplomb, man, that nobody ever found out anything about it, and it got the pc out of the woods gorgeously. So Quantitatively, see? ‘Course what you put your attention [on] are those things that had to be patched up, see?

“Oh, oh. Well, your attention wasn’t on it. Well, I’m very sorry, and so on. Have I cut your communication?” You know, “Sorry,” and so forth. “Well what would you have said if I hadn’t have interrupted that?” See? Got a recovery, see, level, and so forth. Nevertheless, if you really were self-critical to a vast degree, you would have been practically kicking your brains out for having pulled any one of these three.

Pc is going on and saying, “Well, I think I have blown that last GPM think I have blown that.”

“Well, all right. All right. Good. Let’s check some of its items.” Oh-oh, your throat, man, see? Just put the pc’s attention on the wrong thing, wrong place, it’s all going crash, the pc’s needle goes dirty. Get the idea?

You see, you’re split between wanting the pc to think well of you, and getting your job done. And these two things are very often at—they’re diapola [dipolar] phenomena. You try and get your job done sometimes uphill against something and in the final analysis it just merely depends on, did you get the job done, see? That’s what it really depends on in the final analysis. But in process of getting your job done, you happen to have ARC broke the pc and the pc’s communication line several times. Well, the difference between a good and a bad auditor is not whether the auditor always audits smoothly; never cutting an itsa line, but whether or not he attains his eventual objective without creating so many ARC breaks that the pc’s case has not improved. That’s the test!

If you go around training people on the basis of “You must never cut itsa line; you must never create an ARC break; you must never upset pc”—all of these things, you see—it’s something like laying in a GPM, know? Oh, in the first place, it’s an impossible attainment. Always train them with “Be as clever and adroit as you can,” and “You can be a little more accurate than that.” He dropped his E-Meter in the pc’s lap halfway through session. Poor handling of the attention line. Why? Pc’s attention went on meter, not on own case.

All right. Now, how many dozen ways are there to shift the pc’s attention I don’t know—dozens, thousands. Thousands. I’ll give you an idea. You got an alcoholic. You’re trying to process this alcoholic, see? Alcoholic’s drunk during sessions and you know you’re not supposed to audit somebody who’s drunk. All the alcoholic’d do is sit there and say, “Well, Alcoholics Anonymous will say you can’t cure anybody of alcoholism.” That’s all he’s going to say, see knows you can’t help him. He’s saying, well, it’s impossible, see? And you say “Well, the case is unauditable.”
 
Yes, the case is unauditable to everybody except those who are surpassingly skilled with the attention line and the itsa line, see? The whatsit line is practically missing.

“Now, what have you learned about Alcoholics Anonymous?”

“Oh, well, that’s something else, uh . . . Well, I met this fella down the street, this fella, and so forth, and he gave me this book, see? And I read this book and I threw it in a garbage pail. Couldn’t teach me anything. But I learned better after a while.”

“When was that?”

“Oh, in about a few days later I learned better, see? I had this awful hangover, and I just got fired and I was being sued for divorce, and I found out they were your friends. That’s what I found out then.” You’re going to see that tone arm starting to move, man.

He has just told you that you can’t possibly audit him. He has just told you that you can’t possibly help him. So you just—Hhh-hhh—polish up the fingernails, audit him, help him, and somewhere up the line he finds out about it as a major cognition.

But all the way up the line he’s improving. Because if you can get tone arm motion and get the guy with the session, see, by flicking that little old attention line right where it lives—parallel what the mind is doing, and it will do everything you want it to. Nothing new—that’s the beginning lines, I think, of one Of the first-book things. But nevertheless, this gives you the anatomy of how that’s done. You just find out about what this guy’s mind is on, see? And if you can produce tone arm action by having him locate things about it, then he will recover from any obsessive or compulsive tendencies about it or toward it. It’s the tone arm motion that takes off the compulsion, not the significance of what he digs up. Given enough tone arm motion on any given subject, and that subject will right itself in the head of the pc. And, man, I’m talking from hard-won experience. I’d say, if we’ve learned anything in the last thirteen years, man, we’ve learned that. ‘Tisn’t the significance alone. It’s the tone arm motion that can be obtained in relation to the significance that brings about the recovery.

Now, that’s, the fastest recovery is, of course, the tone arm motion plus the right significance to be run. Now, that’s your fastest recovery. But your recovery takes place somewhat and eventually if you just produce tone arm motion. That’s all you have to do, is produce tone arm motion on the case, regardless of what’s run, and eventually—at some vast distance—why, this pc is going to recover from these various targets and so forth in the case. He’s going to recover from them. That’s for sure. But if you audit the right significance and get no tone arm action, the pc will never recover. See,-those are terribly important data.

Well now, the most overcharged areas of the case are the case’s—parts of the case that give the high TA. The high TA and the overcharged area compare. The least-charged aberrative area gives tone arm action.

You very often will find some alcoholic that gets no tone arm action on the subject of alcoholism, but he’s got corns. You can get tone arm action on the subject of corns, you see? In other words, he can’t face that highly a charged approach. So that sometimes the absolute direct approach to a compulsion or obsession of some kind or another will get you nowhere at all, because it’s such a highly charged area that it’s over the pc’s head, and you get no tone arm action on that.

Well, the answer to that is don’t abandon it; just get tone arm action! See? That’s the thing to do. Just get tone arm action! Very remarkable. Because the mind is stacked up the way it is, if you continue to get tone arm action, he’ll all of a sudden walk up on that thing, do you see?
 
Now, undirectedly—that’s just not directing him toward any specific target or goal or aberration or anything else, or any reason he’s not able or anything at all, anything—you get tone arm action and he’ll eventually collide with something. And he will know processing is helping him!

You’ll be utterly flabbergasted sometime. You have this surprise in store for you, if you haven’t collided [with] it already. Knowing the idea about tone arm action, you sit there and this pc babbles on and on and on, and it doesn’t have anything to do with anything you can see, but my God, that tone arm is moving. You’re getting up and down motions on that thing—not a quarter division every twenty minutes, man. You’re getting—it’s got to be a bit healthier than that for a pc to know something about it—but it’s certainly getting a whole tone arm division every ten minutes, and that’s pretty fair tone arm motion, see? And that’s acceptable. I wouldn’t buy much less than that myself—tone arm division every ten minutes. And that would say only down but you realize that it also has to rise in order to go back down again. So if you added the plus and minus, that’d be two tone arm divisions, you see—one up and one down—in ten minutes. Well, that’s just barely, marginally acceptable see, to produce this phenomena.

You get that?

All right. Pc talking about his grandmother’s jam making. Well, cripes you know? This is about as aberrative, don’t you see, as petting the pup. But my heavens, you’re getting tone arm motion on it, man. Well, you can’t do anything else much. You’ve tried something else and gotten a stuck tone arm so let’s let him go on, see? And just completely neglect your attention line. I you were very skilled, you would be unable to totally neglect it. You would punch it around a little bit and increase your tone arm motion, see?
Pc leaves the session feeling fine—feeling fine, wonderful. Pc always makes gains if they have tone arm motion, see? If they have real tone arm motion, they always make gains. If they don’t have tone arm motion, they don’t make gains.

Now, I can tell you at the three-quarter point of a session whether or no the pc will have anything to say decent in the goals and gains. It’s just how much tone arm motion has there been during that session. That’s all; it’s; direct monitoring factor, see?

So this becomes burningly necessary to produce tone arm motion. At any cost, produce tone arm motion. And now you come into your own about the itsa line, because tone arm motion only occurs when the itsa line is in, and tone arm motion does not occur with the itsa line out.

Now, a lot of you think the itsa line is a communication line. It’s not. That’s a surprise, isn’t it? Just because it’s labeled C-distance-E and because it is a communication line, why don’t we just call it the preclear’s line to auditor? That would make it a communication line. But we don’t. We call it the itsa line. Why the itsa? Why? Why?

Well, one of the ways to get this across is to give the student a drill. Just imagine a thetan in various circumstances, you know, like a guy in jail. Alright, now how is his itsa line cut? See, it isn’t just on the graph. That isn’t the only way you can show how the itsa line is cut—in an auditing session. Let’s just take it out in life. And we say, “All right, this guy is in jail. Give me; number of ways this fellow’s itsa line is cut.” And you may get some awful comm lags on the part of the student, but he’ll eventually dig it up, see? How’s his itsa line cut?

Well, let me give you some notions, then, for definition of the itsa line. Well, he can’t go anyplace else to see if “itsa.” He can’t go anyplace else to itsa. He’s right there in jail, isn’t he? Let’s say he was up in London in jail. All right. Well, he couldn’t go down and itsa the coast, could he? He couldn’t say “Itsa water, and itsa beach, and itsa resort, and itsa Brighton,” could he? He can’t get there. How the hell can he itsa it?

Well, he can itsa it on a via, if somebody’d give him a map or a book or a novel that’s about the coast, or something like that. That’s itsa on a via— substitute. Itsa by substitutes. So it’s a kind of an itsa. Well, itsa by facsimiles is an itsa by substitutes, too. So this is not ineffective. But his itsa line—direct itsa line—is sure cut.

Now, there are other ways his itsa line can be cut by reason of being in jail. I won’t go into those particularly.

We have a fellow sitting at a table. We put a blindfold on him. How is his itsa line cut? Do you see how his itsa line is cut? He can’t itsa! That’s what an itsa line is.

What’s a nightmare? What’s a nightmare? A nightmare is the inability to itsa, followed by mocking up something that can be itsa’d that’s wrong.

A thetan likes to be oriented. He orients himself. How does he orient himself? Itsa. “Itsa ceiling, itsa floor, itsa wall. Itsa. Therefore, I’m a . . .”

You hide somebody. You hide somebody. The itsa line is cut on himself. Nobody else can say itsa. Nobody can say itsa. Do you see that?

Disassociate somebody from his identity. How’s his itsa line cut? He can’t say “Itsa me. Itsa me, Joe Jones,” see? Can’t be done. He hasn’t got an identity now.

Well, we get into a whole tangled web of aberration and we find out that that’s the basic aberration: inability to orient or declare or identify or recognize. Not just solve, you understand. It isn’t cure versus cure versus cure. That’s also itsas, but that’s only part of the picture. How do you know you’re here? Well, that’s easy. That’s easy. You say, “Itsa chapel, itsa chair, itsa notebook.” Where you are, “Itsa body.” Up here, “Itsa Ron,” see? You know where you are. Your itsa line is in. You’re oriented, so you feel happy about the whole thing, see? Fine. You know where you are.

It isn’t necessarily how dangerous the environment is. You could be out in the jungle, and you’d be surprised how happy some hunter looked when he says “Itsa lion!” Hasn’t really anything to do with safety, security, and—none of these. These are just extra considerations, see? So you just shred all these extra considerations off and itsa. See? “Itsa jungle, itsa me, itsa gun, itsa lion, itsa bearer up a tree. Well, at least I know I was killed by a lion. My itsa line is in on the subject of that death.”

Well, look, if this is so important to power, and it is; and if this is so important to sanity, and it is; and if this is so important to memory, and it is; and if this is so important to ability, and it is—then we would expect the major tricks on the track to comprise of cutting itsa lines one way or the other.

So, you’re standing up there loud and clear on the parapet, gripping dramatically the flag of the lilies of France, being shot at in shot and shell, and all of a sudden there’s a snick, and you is disconnected. Well, you at least know how you died. You got some idea that it was a flying object, unfriendly directed. And by God, in the next half an hour or something like that, they’re telling you you died some other way. It’s correct? Spoils your itsa line.

And then in the ensuing actions that take place on it, why, they give you a completely false position as far as you’re concerned and a false situation and a false here and a false there and they throw your itsa out on time and they give you a little GPM to carry home with you very happily, give you some nice somatics to go along with it. You’re an idiot to ever go back, you know?

I mean, you move right around the corner of the thing, and itsa where? If it’s 70.6 trillion-seven years ago, which is right now, that itsa is certainly for the birds, isn’t it? You understand, they’ve misdated a somatic on you, because they say, “Now we’re going to give you your future,” and somehow or another restimulate your facsimiles of the past and say they’re in the future and . . . What’s happening here? Well, enough happened so that everybody on the planet believed they lived only once. And that’s how serious the cutting of itsa line can be. You combine this with plenty of force and you got it made man!

I can see it now, the development of a new psychiatry. A new medical psychiatry can be developed out of this. You can get people so mixed up that they’d report back to the medical doctor every time. They do. Insane patients are always reporting back for their shocks, and so forth, see? Well-known fact. The report-back mechanism is just used and used and used and used and used by these nuts.

By the way, I thought of a difference between a Scientologist and the world at large on this particular planet. The people think that what we doing is unreal, but we know the substance of their unreality, which of course makes us top dog every time. We know the substance of their unreality.

In other words, we know where their itsa line is out. See, they know what—they’re not identifying. Their itsas are just for the birds, you know “Man is an animal. He is a biochemical protoplasm which goes no place. At death there is a cessation of cellular commotion.” That’s a good itsa, isn’t That just immediately makes nothing out of everybody.

Ah, so there’s a formula. There’s a formula involved here. And that your itsa line can be out on ARC, and KUCDEI Zero and F. How many ways can an itsa line be? Well, it’s that whole scale I gave you for R2H. Known, unknown, curious, desired, enforced, inhibited, none of it and false—absent and false. This is how many itsa aberrations there can be, see?

Well, false, that’s the easiest one of all. You hold up somebody—you “Here, have a piece of candy, sonny.” Give him a piece of chalk, see? He bit it. His itsa line is out, man. Got the idea?

You say, “There is nothing here, boys. There is nothing haunting our planet; there is nobody after you; nothing happens. I mean, you’re just natural and there’s nobody after you, see?” That itsa line is for birds, see? “You’re paranoid! You think people are pursuing you!” Of course nobody is pursuing us—they don’t have to. They got us, man!

So they say something isn’t, which is. Well, of course you can get reverse of that. They say something is which isn’t, such as the Darwin theory, which is just an old implant.

Inhibited. Inhibited: Give a guy a pair of distorting glasses or make look at things in a twisted mirror, like a fun-house mirror. His itsa line is inhibited. Tell him he must not examine such-and-so and so-and-so because it is very dangerous, and of course his itsa line is inhibited at once.

And of course, enforced itsa: “You better damn well know about that or you will be shot tomorrow morning without cigarette or blindfold.” Enforced itsa.

Desired itsa—see, that’s a “want to know” sort of itsa: Somebody is happy to know that you’re all right. You see? That’s a desirable itsa.

And the itsa of curiosity is not just being curious about what is; it’s an itsa which is curiosity. It’s a curiosity itsa, don’t you see?

Now, you go up higher than that and you get an unknown itsa. Hey, you know, there is an unknown itsa. I just gave you an example of one. You had complete reality on the unreality of people on this planet. See, the itsa is the unknownness, see? You recognize they don’t know! Well, that is an itsa. it’s pretty high-scale stuff for a thetan to be able to recognize that it is unknown. This thing really boxes him around, because, of course, it mix with the actual desire to make something known which can be known. And amongst that, you get the accumulations of unknownnesses that are unknown and will always be unknown, will never be anything else, because they’re tailored to be unknown. And if you don’t think that can’t be, look at the word unknown. See, there’s a perfect example. Yes, there is such a thing as an unknown. There’s a word, there’s the concept that you back it up, u-n-k-n-o-w-n, unknown, and that is a something which is unknown, isn’t it? I mean, this is getting idiotic.

There’s many a religion, man, which is built 100 percent on a beautiful building which houses a nonexistence. And they have created an unknown. That’s what they have created! See, it is something that can be created. And a thetan’s tolerance, as it rises, eventually gets up to a point where he can actually confront an unknown without doing a thing about it. He can recognize that it is unknown; it’s a manufactured unknown.

Like x, in algebra. There’s another example. Somebody writes x. All right, he can confront the fact that x is unknown. Of course, if he’s nowhere near an algebra teacher he probably won’t even be forced to find out a known for that unknown, either. He probably won’t even do the equation. x + y - z = 0. Of course, you don’t even know what the equation applies to and neither does anybody else. A mathematician is somebody who’s gone overboard on the subject of unknownnesses and he has to solve all of these unknownnesses.

Now, if you don’t think that isn’t prevalent—if you don’t think that isn’t prevalent—there is one of the things that holds up auditors in auditing, is they get so upset about the pc being in an unknown while he’s trying to itsa that they eventually grab hold of the meter and they say, “Oh, well, let’s see. Is it twenty years ago? thirty years ago? It’s thirty years ago. Yeah, well, we know about that now.” They say they’re just helping the pc. It’s just they can’t confront that “Well, and so, and so, za-za-za, za-za, [etc.]. I don’t know. I just don’t know. It couldn’t have been so.” And they think, “Oh, my God, if this goes on a minute longer,” you know? And they get the itsa line in for themselves.

And then, of course, an itsa line can be too known. Every once in a while some murder-mystery characters... The thing is out because it is known. Every once in a while, some murder-mystery writer has the postman do it, because nobody ever sees a postman. See? It’s too known. I bet there’s crime after crime on the books down here that remains unsolvable because it was committed in too known a fashion. See? It’s a known itsa. Itsa of knownnesses.

Every once in a while you’re doing an ARC break on some pc on R2H and can’t quite find out what it is, and you eventually will hit “known communication,” you know? Known. Well, of course he knows it. He thought it was something else. Why? Because he knew it. So you get how slippy that can be, see? That’s this “everybody knows” that is talked about in Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, you see? Everybody knows these things—that’s known itsas—so you never examine them. That’s another way of having a known itsa.

But the pc’s attention with his itsas rises up and down this whole new version of the CDEI Scale, see?—goes up and down, each one in those various stages. And he picks out this and he picks out that and he picks out something else, and all he’s doing is saying “It is a . . .” He is identifying, in other words. He’s identifying something. And when he cannot identify something, then he identifies by classification—identification by classification. “This is a type of . . .”

Psychiatry does this all the time. They say, “This is dementia praecox case . . .” They’ve gotten so idiotic with it now that if somebody goes to that Chestnut Lodge, where Graham—that publisher of News week and the Post that was so against Scientology—where he went, and went home on vacation and killed himself. He went home for a day; he was supposed to come back. Up there at Chestnut Lodge . . . I’ve told you about it before. That’s actually the name of the joint; it’s up around . . .

And it’s very remarkable. But it’s very remarkable up there. But if a person is transferred to Chestnut Lodge, regardless of their symptoms before they now have schizophrenia. And I have asked this several times, trying to get the answer. And I finally did get the answer and understood it was the answer and after that it didn’t plague me. But it’s a very interesting example of interesting variation of itsa, see? And that is, they are a schizophrenic because they were transferred to Chestnut Lodge—because that’s all there are Chestnut Lodge!

Well now, that’s by classification plus idiocy, see?

When you say “It is a cupboard,” you have a pleasant sensation familiarity and knowingness. You seldom stop to think that you have classify something. You know something because you know of a similar something, so you get your gradients. Your gradients of classification establish familiarity in that particular direction.

Every once in a while this familiarity gets betrayed or something like that and you get an ARC break with it. You say, “It is a cupboard,” and you open it up and find out that it’s a mouse home, or something, see? Somebody’s using it to breed white mice for something, or something. Or “It is an automobile,” you get into it and find out it’s a stage prop. A little minor ARC break then false itsa, don’t you see?

That’s quite common in GPMs. Pc goes halfway through the GPM and of a sudden does the right itsa. “Ha-ha, ha! These are just railroad carriages with a painted backdrop of a train going off in the distance. They’re not trains.” See? Identified the character of the itsa.

This is all, then, on the subject of identification; it’s all on the subject of familiarity; it’s all on the subject of finding out; it’s all on the subject making oneself comfortable with what he is looking at; it’s all on the subject of straightening out one’s various grades of ARC with the universe. Now, what gives a thetan such a passion for this, this is something else and not the subject of this lecture, nor, actually, the subject of cases at the present moment. But it opens up a very interesting channel of research. What’s this passion to itsa? See, that’s an interesting question.

But, that you do get tone arm action when you itsa and the case does improve, this is well established. And this is germane to all cases. So getting the itsa line in has nothing to do with getting the pc’s communication in. It’s “nothing to do,” that’s another action. That’s more apt to be the attention line—to you—or something of this sort. Don’t you see? That’s getting communication in. That’s not the itsa line. No, getting the itsa line is getting the pc to identify, separate, compartment, differentiate, inspect, decide about, things in his bank—or, in an objective process, in the room.

You want to see a tone arm fall, you could probably produce it normally by saying “What’s that? What’s that? What’s that? What’s that?” and have the pc itsa.

You say, “What’s that?” pointing at the fireplace.

Pc says, “It’s a fireplace.”

Actually, you run it for a very little while . . . This is not a broad, general thing, because there are other factors involved here. Pc is so introverted that it’s painful for him to extrovert his attention, and he can only extrovert attention on a broad via. And other special conditions arise here that does make this a pat process, you understand? It’s a pat process, though, as far as his bank is concerned, always—not necessarily objectively. But I’m giving the objective version here, which is a limited version of it.

And you say, “What’s that? What’s that? What’s that? What’s that?” 

Every time the pc says “ltsa.” Normally, if a pc is not having too bad a time and he isn’t fouled up and you haven’t got him stuck on the track someplace and interested in something else, you’ll see your tone arm fall.

You can also see a pc getting very interested. All of a sudden, he—”What is it? Yeah, it’s a fireplace, but uh . . . but . . .” And he’ll want to go over and take a closer look at the thing to make sure it’s a fireplace built out of a certain kind of brick, see? His itsa’s getting sharper. You will see his identification rise.

Now, this is so good that a Touch Assist works. Familiarization processes permit people to get drivers’ licenses who couldn’t, by just touching cars—you know, “Itsa, itsa, itsa car” is all he’s running, you know? He thought it was a buffalo for a while or something. Well, listen, if he couldn’t drive the thing, he must have thought something weird—that I assure you.

So itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa—that’s familiarization.

You want to teach some girl to type. Well, just have her familiarize herself with the tools of the trade. Very funny. She can get up to an itsa, itsa, itsa to a point, and her ability will rise, rise, rise along with it, which is very peculiar. But then this has something to do with charge. The change of case has to do with the release of charge because of the itsa. There’s two things happen: The individual who is really itsaing things is also blowing off encysted charge caused by former confusions about them. And that charge is encysted, and that is a force aspect and a mass aspect with regard to this.

Here’s the phenomenon, see? Here’s this encysted little thing here, see? And you said, “What’s in there?” see?

And he says, “Oh, tsfoo-uh-zoo, and zoo-oo, zoo-oo, zoo-oo.” Tone arm is moving, see? Picking up those fingers one by one off the clasped hands, you see? And “Well, that’s off. Well, that’s off also. I don’t know. Let’s see, see what . . . what it is, what it is . . . Oh! Palms!”

You didn’t think anything was in there, did you?

That’s just charge. And you see that tone arm start moving; well, that’s charge coming off of one of these bundles, and the guy is looking and it’s just a method of as-ising.

Now, while he’s doing this, what drives some auditors around the bend is he puts in a lot of additional itsas. Why, that’s of no great harm, see?

He says, “Itsa house. No, itsa car. No, itsa . . .” See? “Itsa fingernail—no, oh, no. No, no. Oh, I know what this is! I . . . I know what this is. I know what this is. A watermelon!” And then (as an auditor said to me last night) we get all set and we’ve both got a watermelon and then all of a sudden he says, “No, it isn’t a watermelon, it’s a diamond ring.”

And the auditor starts feeling kind of confused, because, you see, his itsa line is being thrown around by the pc. But only, only if the auditor doesn’t completely understand what he is doing. He’s trying to find something and then be content with it. Well, that isn’t auditing, man. An auditor’s superior knowledge should be that if the guy says it’s a watermelon, he for sure is going to call it a diamond ring shortly. And if it really is a diamond ring, he’ll never mention it thereafter, because it’s itsa’d.

But until it is itsa’d, he’s going to call it all sorts of things. It’s going to be at a billion years, and it’s going to be 5 years into the future, and it’s going to be back trillions-five years, and it’s going to be 465 years ago, and it’s going to be yesterday, and it’s going to be now, and it’s going to be fifteen minutes ago, and it’s going to be trillions-ten ago, and it’s going to be 18 trillion years ago, and then all of a sudden it settles down to 125 billion trillion years ago. Period. Bang—that’s it.

You don’t hear about it anymore than that, because he got it, see? It’s itsa’d.

So, a lot of apparent itsas come off in the process of obtaining an itsa. And you almost could say that all the running of a case, from the first moment of processing on through to the final cognition of the case, consists of conditional itsas. Conditional itsas. That’s the way it is for that circumstance and that certain place, you see? An auditor should never have any thought that he’s going to get nothing but permanent itsas. Naturally, you go through a GPM, you take off the items according to a plot—well, that’s the itsa of it!

Reason I don’t have any trouble running a GPM is I have no doubt about the itsa of a GPM, see? Thats it. It just is what it is. There was nothing there to understand. It was put there to louse you up and immobilize you and cut down your power and ability, you see, and it’s a bunch of electronic circuits which go into a couple of boxes, and they have a couple of things that fire both sides of the thing, and they start you in the top, turn you upside down at the bottom, and that’s all there is to it. And you go through and you see “Pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,” and that’s the end of the GPM. It’s false itsa, see? Actually, in most cases, not even much of a protest. You know he’s not saying “It should be some other way.” Once in a while a spotted intent with a false idea of the intention will hang it up for a moment. But that’s itsa, see?

You don’t have the immediate and direct itsa of “How come I got into a situation where I started getting these things in the first place?” you see? Well that’s one of these big itsas, see? This finally starts dawning on the pc. “What the hell was I doing delivering myself up to a comedy like this,” you see, “every few trillion years?” you know? “What’s the matter with me? What’d I do? What happened to me? Well, what’s wrong with me ‘ead? How come?”

And you’ll find most pcs will start chewing on this after a while, and they chew on it and chew on it and chew on it and chew on it and chew and—they sometimes chew on it for two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight hundred hours, see? “How come?” There’s no reason to blow your brains about it or stretch your medulla oblongata all out of shape. It all of a sudden will rise up in your midst and there it will be: the itsa of “It is . . .” See? “a that’s why!” you see?

Now, the adroitness with which an auditor can use a little attention to put the pc’s attention into areas that can be explored, that are easy enough for the pc to see into, that will produce tone arm action . . . is a very skilled auditor. And that is what is known as getting in the itsa line. Getting in the line does not consist of sitting back and letting the pc talk for hours at nothing. You understand, we do not frown on that if you can’t do anything about it. You understand? But there is a much more adroit level by which you put attention on things that can be identified by him, and which will there unsnarl the thing called a problem or the bank or that aberrated area.

And it’s the degree that you can obtain tone arm action—that you can get that—that marks the skill of the auditor. That is the most skilled center zone of auditing. It’s almost so skilled that I hesitate to mention it again because I’ve had loses along this line.

Now, if you can do that, there is its anatomy. If you can do that, would be known as this fantastic thing called “the touch,” “intuition” these other things would mount up back of this. It’s quite awesome. So get in the itsa line isn’t just sitting there. It’s actually doing something else.

Now, letting the itsa line exist is descriptive of the lowest level of auditing on this, you see—just letting the itsa line exist. We’ll get somewhere, see? We get somewhere if we just do that. But don’t go speaking carelessly of getting itsa line in unless you’re doing just that. You’re taking the pc-to-auditor communication line, and you are putting it right into zones and areas where he will find itsas. You’re putting the pc’s attention in there to where that line be “itsa a. . . .” and a “itsa a. . .” and “Rur-rurrumda-ummrnmm. Well, a . . .” you see and “rrrrr ra-ra-ra-rm, and so on, and so on, and so on. Well . . . I guess—l guess it was my complacence in college. That’s what got . . . Yes, that’s right.. That’s what really got me in trouble. I was complacent about everything. I was—that’s it!” Bang! You will all Of a sudden see your tone arm go right on down, see? You see the charge come off of the case in the bucket loads.

This is actually so skilled that it’s the production of cognitions. You can produce cognitions if you want to. You can be that skilled. This is something that takes some familiarization with yourself. You should know what the tools are: The tools is [are] the line 1 minor, and that is used to produce a searching attention on the part of the pc; your whatsit line is left there more or less alone, to produce this kind of phenomena. Why? Because the universe is full of whatsit lines. The pc is suffering from too much whatsit and too little itsa. And the net result of this is of course to jam his itsa line. And you, the auditor, by letting it flow, pull him out of the soup.

Of course, the direction of significances as powerful as a GPM, as powerful as a super-duper engram, as powerful as this sort of thing on the way backtrack, God ‘elp us, and so forth—man, that’s putting in the itsa line on a significance with magnitude. And that thing actually requires considerable skill. You’ve got to have line plots and the idea of cross listing, and the doingness of the auditor is considerable. The skill is considerable, his drills are considerable, and so forth. Nevertheless, even those fail if you don’t let the itsa line exist. You got to leave that itsa line alone and let it roll.

Now, it also consists of not cutting it, and there are numerous ways the itsa line can be cut in auditing. It’s a good drill to get somebody to come around and show you that August 4 plot. Have him find the number of ways you can cut that pc’s itsa line. Then make him pass the drill: How many ways could you aberrate somebody by cutting the itsa line? And then he has to find out what the itsa line is. That’s an awfully good drill, and that drives it home with a thud.
All right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

I hope you get a good grip on this one, because it’s a slippy one. And of course it’s—trouble with it is, it’s so known, see? It’s an “everybody knows,” you know? Itsa line—obviously it’s the pc’s communication line. Even though we went on saying “itsa” and calling it an itsa line—well, why is it called an itsa line, and so forth? And you’ll see this one drift on through Scientology and always, forever, in some part of Scientology, this one will be too known. That I know, for sure.

But the very skilled auditor and the very well reputed auditor and the auditor who gets terrific results will be the auditor who has this one down cold. He knows an itsa line backwards and forwards. Pc sits down with a present time problem—it isn’t necessarily a speed factor involved—but the pc talks to him for a while and mysteriously this present time problem blows up and the pc is sitting right exactly in the middle of exactly what the auditor wanted him to be in, and the pc is running on exactly what they ought to be running, zippety-bop. And the pc is happy and the auditor is happy and everything is going as smooth as glass.

Naturally, there will be some jolts on the line. Every once in a while you’ll wish you had never opened your big mouth. And I hope you don’t get into as many of those as I have in the last thirteen years.

Thank you very much.

THE ITSA LINE (CONT.)

A lecture given on 
21 August 1963

What’s the date?

Audience: August 21st.

21st. 21st August A.D. 13.

All right. We could cover an awful lot of stuff here. Be very easy to do.

The main things in which you are involved at the present moment probably look far more complicated to you than they are.

I’m going to talk to you some more about the tone arm and the itsa line, and forms of sessions. Things look to you a lot more involved than they actually are.

Sitting somewhere back of every thetan’s bank is some tremendous insecurity in which he believes implicitly that the universe is dangerous, or that he himself is in danger or that he cannot live or survive as a powerful being. And whatever that state is, and however that state is created originally is not particularly germane to this lecture.

But the discovery of the itsa line may look to you to be a highly simple little thing, perhaps even a duplication of psychoanalysis. After all, they talked. And if you didn’t know anything about the itsa line, you could draw all sorts of wild conclusions, you see? Make the mistake of saying, “Well, it’s a communication line, and therefore any communication line is an itsa line, and therefore if you let anybody talk about anything, why, he will get better.”

We already know if you let a fellow talk on an entheta line very long, he’ll run his havingness out the bottom. So the complexities of the itsa line are really quite something. It sits on a tremendous amount of technology, but in itself is very simple to understand. There’s nothing much to understanding it. If you understand it you’d see actions like this very readily and immediately, and these actions would be something like this:

Pc said, “I—I don’t know uh . . . whether it was . . . Let’s see, now, it was uh . . . uh . . . twenty, twenty, twenty uh . . . I guess about twenty years ago. And uh . . . the fellow said uh—I don’t know what he said, but I know what I think about it. I—I—I know that uh . . . I—I know I think it was a big swindle of some kind or another. And uh . . . Come to think about it, I don’t know whether I said that or he said that.”

Auditor: “It reads that he said it.”

Oh, wait a minute. What happens at this point? What occurred there, exactly? Well, you know at once what occurred, if you know the itsa line. The auditor put in the itsa with the meter, leaving the pc in a zone and area of insecurity.
 
Now, we say, all right, the line plot. The line plot: that tells the pc what items are in the GPM. See, just like that, see? So obviously we say, well, this to some degree puts in the itsa line for the pc. Well, no, no. That could be said to, but we get across the proposition of the lesser of two evils. If you’ve ever seen a pc wrapped around a telephone pole with undisclosed charge from running a GPM he knew not what of, or did not know any of the elements of, you will use line plots.

If the thing is a known line plot, we will use it. Why? Because that was a predesigned plot in the first place. It was an other-determined design— you understand that somebody else determined the design. What’s important about it is the charge that is on it, and what’s important in the auditing is to get off the charge and get the pc to identify, to his own reality, that itsa.

See, if the line plot you handed him on a sheet of paper didn’t agree with the thing he was running, you will very shortly hear about it. He can get wrapped around a telegraph pole with great speed. But that’s a shadow of putting in an itsa line, isn’t it? That’s a shadow of putting in the itsa line with the pc—but a necessary action.

Now, I’ll give you its similar borderline: Pc says, “Oh, it’s twenty years ago, it was fifteen—no, it’s eighteen . . . eighteen, four . . . twenty, twenty-two . . . It’s twenty-two year . . . I think it was twenty-two year . . . No, no. It—it must have been twenty-five—thirty. No, uh . . . twenty-one . . . I—I don’t know. I don’t know. I just don’t know when it was. (sniff)” He quit, see? He quit cold.

What you going to do? Sit there with a pc who has quit cold? Or are you going to say, “All right, I’ll give you a hand. Was it more than twenty years ago, less than twenty years ago? Was it twenty years ago? All right, it’s more than twenty years ago. Is it more than twenty-five years ago? Less than twenty-five years ago? Less than twenty-five years ago. You got some idea of it now?”

“Yeah! It was twenty-three years ago.”

Or, “Was it more than twenty-five? Less than twenty-five? It was less than twenty-five. Twenty-three? Twenty-three? I’m getting a read here on twenty-three.”

“Yeah. It was twenty-three.”

Get that? So you didn’t totally put in the itsa line. See, you could start putting the itsa line in and the pc catches the ball, put it almost totally in and the pc catches it, see, and get right onto the hour and the minute, and the pc never caught it, but at least you don’t have something wrong-dated. And those are the gradients of putting in the itsa line. And the last one—it’s a little bit of a lose to have to put it all the way in for the pc, see?

All right, now, look at the length of time you and other fellows around have been stumbling around on this planet. There’s a number of thousands of years. And the number of thousands of years you’ve been in the Marcab Confederacy are quite numerous. They probably run up to two or three hundred thousand years that you’ve been inside this system. And let me call to your attention, never during that time could you put your foot on the first step of the road which led back to a better life and some happiness and freedom, see? You couldn’t get a foot on that road at all.

All right. Right now you have technology. You have a map. The map has got all kinds of blank spots in it, but nevertheless, there’s the type of map it is, don’t you see? And those are persuasions toward an itsa line. And the only time you totally lose—the only time you totally lose—is when you have to put the whole itsa line in.

Give somebody the pattern for a goal: All right, he has to list for the actual goal in that sequence and find it. And he has to list for and get the top oppterm, to make it, in order to fit the pattern, and then he’s got to fit the pattern together. And this is an awful lot of itsa. See?

Well, all right, so you’ve got the preprinted pattern. Give him this, and he just reads it off. You understand? This is less desirable, but it’s still feasible.

All right, now let’s put it totally in. Let’s put it totally in. Let’s just hit him with a lightning bolt so that he can’t contact any of the facsimiles in it, and we have medical psychiatry. See, the evil involved in this is putting in an itsa line in such a way as to have no self-determinism, no power of choice left in the pc at all. Total wipeout of power of choice, don’t you see?
Now, you can fall short of that in various degrees. Little kid is going around, see? He’s real unhappy about the whole thing, he’s real unhappy about life and he’s walking around in circles and so forth. And you say to him, “That is your bed.” Well, you haven’t really done very much for him, but you have improved his state of mind or his peace, see? Just to that degree. You understand? You say, “That is your bed.”

Nevertheless, you have put in the itsa line. He himself has not found out that it is his bed, you see? But look, he’s still very happy to have the bed.

Now, when we get down into pure, unadulterated evil, we get a denial of the itsa line and we go into aberration, creation of. See, this whole thing inverts, and we get KUCDEI Zero F—that whole scale of means of perverting the itsa line.

Now, those means, well, include an inability to ever find anything, an inability to reach anything, and so forth. Well now, medical psychiatry (to amend what I was saying a moment ago) is of the inclination that it is better, you see, for nobody to have anything to do with anything, see? See that? Now, look at that as an inversion. That’s an inversion of the fact.

Now, the aberration of this line—perversion of this itsa line—has to be very direct in order to be very aberrative. You have to pervert the line, you see—just outrightly put in something false, or put nothing there, you see, and so on, or inhibit very directly, and you have to work at it. It has to be worked at and so on. Given the slightest chance, why, the pc will start putting in his itsa line. But what does he put his itsa line in on?

All right, let’s take Freudian analysis: He puts in his itsa line on childhood sexual incidents. They’re not aberrative! Anybody get anyplace? Old Papa Freud did contribute something. He said there was a possibility. Great, let’s applaud him for that.

But he was putting the itsa line in in directions that didn’t wind up with anything, and then after he got through he put the line in, totally; the practitioner put the line in. See, he said, “The reason why you are aberrated now is we have finally found out that you had a fetish going. You had a fetishism. And actually, your little brother’s right shoe has aberrated your whole existence, and that is why you are always talking about the feet on chairs, you see? And now we’ve got this all explained, and you are better.”

Now, that’s all very fine, but he didn’t look at the hypnotic character of the statement “You are better.” That’s putting in the itsa line.

All right. We got some guy walking around in circles out here. (Let’s take a look at these various gradients of putting in the itsa line for somebody; you’ll gradually see what I’m talking about and what I’m driving at here.) Got some guy walking around in circles and, man, he doesn’t know which way to turn. He’s got lumbosis and he’s been aberrated by hearing of a psychiatrist when he was young and he’s got all kinds of things, you see. He’s having a hard time—having a hard time. And you say something can be done about it.

Well, you’ve put in some variety of itsa line, haven’t you? And that’s what you call a hope factor. And this guy very often responds to this, and he feels much happier about this, don’t you see? You see that—that the hope factor, then, is to that slight degree putting in the itsa line, see? It’s not really much an itsa line. But you’re saying, “It is not—it is not hopeless!” See? You’re so of putting in a negative line for him a little bit there, and you carry him along.

You see, as we look at this problem, we’ll see that there are various degrees of putting in the itsa line for somebody. See, there are various degrees of this and these things vary from the very, very evil—which is to say, hand a guy pomegranate and say, “That’s a bomb.” See, that’s putting in a false itsa line They vary from that up to, well, making it impossible for him to put it in (That’s a lower grade, making it impossible for the person to put in an itsa line.) Varies up to the little necessary actions necessary to begin the flow of the itsa line.

See, and these little necessary actions are such as “Start of session.” And the basic intent is what makes the difference. That’s the first fundament difference, although this, too, can go too far.

But the basic intent is what makes the most fundamental difference. Do you intend to improve this person’s itsaing ability, or do you intend to knock it into a cocked ‘at? Which? So it begins right there with the intention. And that gives you the difference between the cowboys in the white hats and the cowboys in the black hats, see? And it’s right there, man, bang!

Intention: decrease this person’s ability to itsa—cowboys in the black hats. Intention: by some or any means, to improve this person’s ability itsa—cowboys in the white hats. That’s good and evil, defined in terms the itsa line. That’s the difference between freedom and slavery, that’s the difference between making freemen and making slaves. You make slaves by the intention to decrease the ability to put in the itsa line. That’s how you make a slave. And that gives you the whole textbook of how to make slaves right there, complete with gold letters and a chain-pattern cover.

And the other way is to improve the person’s ability to itsa. In other words, to identify, to spot, to find out. And there we have that point from which we can separate the Scientologist from the medicos, we can separate the decent civilizations from the lousy ones; we can go right on through there.

This quarter of the universe, by the way, is suffering from an overdose lousy civilization. See, that’s what it’s suffering from. It apparently has been recently conquered in recent times (in the last few hundred thousand years but those who were conquered had already been—their governmental action had already been—set up for their own failure, see? They’d been set up be conquered by using, themselves, mental technology which made slaves. They implanted their own troops. Oh-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, ah-ah-ah-ah-a ah-ah-ah.

“We’re going to plant somebody up to be a loyal soldier, to fight bravely, never give up his body so long as it is alive, to be true to the empire.”

We’re going to plant somebody, are we? Remember, every one of those items we put in, to stick, has to have a negative item! And that doesn’t just cut it down 50 percent, that puts it in the betrayal line. It cuts it down enormous because some empire that would do this to somebody gets their support lines giving them the itch, see? “Yeah, we’ll help the general out,” you know? He him into the car so that he goes through the other side and falls out the opposite door, you know? It’s an accident, you know? When the planes take off half their motors don’t run, you know? They’re just running up against total sabotage, because they’ve already got a slave empire.

And you may be able to force a group by slavery and so forth into semblance of a civilization, but it’s only ever a semblance; there’s never anything to which anybody freely, wholeheartedly contributes. It has no strength, it has no power because remember, 50 percent of the implant “Don’t be a good soldier.” And then the fact that the implant occurred at all, of course, is enough to knock one’s loyalty in a cocked hat.

Let’s take an earlier and probably still extant organization, the Galactic Confederacy: eighty trillion years, smooth as glass. No implanting. Interesting? I don’t know the exact length of the Espinol Confederacy, but it’s probably something on the order of a few hundred thousand years. Implants—no empire.

The figures read themselves. Rome died at the hands of her slaves. That’s for sure. She was never conquered by the barbarians. I know it looked very nice in the history books, but the truth of the matter is, who wanted to fight for Rome? You get through with a war, you come home, you find out the slave civilization has already taken over the farms. There’s no need for your production; there’s no need for a freeman; there was no pay to be a freeman. That was the reward and the pat on the back for having fought through the wars, you see?
And it started going into a civil-war situation. And half of the Roman Empire was always fighting half of the Roman Empire. I don’t remember the exact name of the battle; it doesn’t occur to me. I read it in Gibbon (and it’s probably wrong in Gibbon) and got cluttered up on it—it’s either Messana or something like that.

But the reason the first barbarians got to Rome was because—she didn’t have very large numbers in her armies, but forty thousand of her first-line troops lay dead at Messana in a civil war caused by unrest caused by slavery. And they had no first-line troops. That was practically the entire call-up of the empire. And historians today trace back to that battle as the reason the barbarian was able to conquer the thing.

Well, you trace back the battle, and you find the battle came because of civil scar. And we find out why the civil war came and it came by slavery.

The American Civil War, that destroyed one of the better agricultural areas of America, and so forth, was again a battle about slavery, one way or the other. Every time you have slavery, you have trouble, see? You don’t even have to be sentimental about it. You don’t have to be sentimental. You can be terribly statistical. You don’t have to say it’s good or it’s bad or anything else. You don’t have to beat the drum for it, or be a person who wants to reform things or something like that. Just look at the statistics. Slavery never pays off. That’s it. That’s that. It’s dangerous. If anything is dangerous, it’s slavery.

You don’t suppose America would be having very much trouble right now with its race riots and 250 thousand Negroes about to converge on Washington, and so forth, if they hadn’t kicked off this slavery. And it’s very funny, but the most involved people in American slavery were the Bostonians. Used to have what they called the “triangle trade.” They’d send ships loaded with rum down to Africa, use the rum to buy blacks (as they referred to them), use the whip and Christianity on them to bring them back over, and they traded in the blacks down around the West Indies, and so forth, for sugar cane, and they brought the sugar cane up to Boston and they made rum, and they shipped the rum to Africa, and they just had that worked out. And practically the first families of Boston are founded directly on slavery.

Kennedy missed that. He wasn’t there at that—family wasn’t in America at that particular time. His family got out from underneath another type of slavery: the landowner, the absentee landlord, the high rates—this type of economic slavery, and 80 forth. And these things go back to roots. In other words, we have catastrophes in all directions. We have the catastrophe of Boston, the catastrophe of Kennedy.

We’ve got a situation here whereby you trace world trouble, and you trace it straight back to slavery. I’m not trying to beat the drum for anything. Why do you think Russia can’t get its feet under itself, and why is everybody having such a hard time with the Russians, and why are the Russians so silly as to evolve a slave economy such as communism, and so forth? What’s all this fuss?

Well, this fuss goes back to the idea in early Russian history that a man belonged to the land, and when you sold the land you sold the man with it.

Well, the European civilisation got out from underneath that, two or three centuries before, and Russia has not yet got out from underneath that. She still carrying the burden of her past chains. And therefore she can’t think straight. She’s like trying to get a pc to think in the middle of a session, you know? Can’t do it. That’s a little more touching picture than they actually are painting.

Actually, what I think is, is the White Russian prince and that sort fellow, you see, he went back to the between-lives area and he came back and he picked up a body and became a commissar. I don’t think they’ve yet changed their faces very much.

But the trouble with world affairs today is slavery. The greatest empire earth ever had went down in the dust with slavery. The British Empire right now is having a rough time and is staggering around because of its effort to colonize, and to do this and to do that and do something about this, and to free man and not to free man, and somehow or another to hold him in economic duress—don’t you see?—and not let him free but then to let him free, and You know?

You got all this trouble down here in Africa running around in one way or the other. Well, that’s the sort of trouble you get when you suddenly start taking the lid off something that has had the lid nailed down on for a very long time, you see? And without anybody around who really knows much about why, we get those boys going back into slavery too. First action of a new African ruler is ordinarily to throw the whole opposition in jail because they are insufficiently enslaved by his regime, you see? This viewpoint. This viewpoint.

Now, I’m not discoursing on this just because I have a bee in my bonnet about it, because I frankly couldn’t care less, as far as this planet is concerned it’ll never get out of any mess unless we get it out of that mess, and I’m using the situation just to show you the liabilities of slavery. You always get lash-back - always. Because a thetan never gives up! That’s it. He really never gives up. He’s lying there. He might look awful quiet, he might look terribly dead, he might look like he doesn’t interfere with anything, you see? But in actual fact, he really never gives up!

He’s got some trick: You can put him in jail, immobilize him, wrap all up in adhesive tape and electric cord, and so forth, and he gets even with you: he sits there and thinks how he’s right. He even goes down to that postulate see? He can hold that postulate clear on down through the lowest level of unconsciousness—that he was right. Well, I think that’s very interesting. Because if he ever gets out of it, he’ll go on being right, see? If he ever get of it, he’ll go on being right about what he was being right about before he was put in that state.

In other words, the effort to dominate, the effort to dominate and power of choice is the road that this universe walked toward the hell it became. Fear—the unlovely specter of fear—stands ahead of all of those.

Let’s trace this out very carefully: To survive. All right, very good. guy wants to survive. Whatever put him in the state of mind that he has to survive? Because this is your biggest piece of nonsense. A thetan can’t possibly do anything but survive. In fact, it’s probably the trouble with him. That’s certainly the trouble governments and things have with him. That trouble the Marcabians are having with him right now. How to kill a thetan is the biggest problem in this universe. See, it’s just not solvable. They thought they had it all solved and we came along. See, they just never really are going to whip this problem. How do you kill a thetan? Well, it’s not an elegant problem to whip.

Now, how can a being—who actually can’t be struck at, who cannot do anything but survive and cannot die, who can pass through various lapses of memory and that sort of thing—how can this being get into a state of mind whereby he’s concerned about survival? Well, it takes quite a lot of trickery to do that. Usually it’s on the extension of self into a possession, like making a minion. You mock a mock-up up and then you endow it with some life, you see? And then somebody comes along and starts to kick its head off, so you protect it and you identify yourself with it. Or you construct a civilization and identify with it, and you’re trying to get the civilization to survive, so that eventually you get worried about your own survival. You see the mistake which has to be made there? That mistake actually has to be made directly before a thetan gets worried about his own survival.

In other words, he has to extend some type of line onto something that he feels can’t survive, and then identify himself with it to such an extent that he feels his own survival can be affected. And this is your first step into aberration.

All right. Your next step forward from this is an elementary step: Because one is now worried about survival, one resolves the problem of survival by domination. This is not any kind of a solution at all. It’s a lousy solution, but it gets used and is probably—that which is not admired tends to persist. That very definitely applies in this particular line, because domination is probably the least admired thing in this universe, and yet, oddly enough, is continuously successful. But it’s really not successful.

So, domination comes in here. And we have thetan A and thetan B. and the way that thetan B is kept from destroying thetan A’s construction or civilization, don’t you see, is by thetan A dominating thetan B. you see? That is the formula by which this is arrived at. So thetan A, to protect something he wants to have survive, therefore seeks to dominate thetan B. And then being in a frame of mind where he feels he himself cannot survive, then he just obsessively goes on and dominates thetans B. C, D, E, F and G. see?

But he overlooks the fact that if he dominates thetans B. D, E, F and G. sooner or later, thetans B. D, E, F and G in their turn are going to dominate. Do you see? Because we’ve set up a cause-effect line, and the best thing you know about a cause-effect line—we may not know much about overt-motivator sequences; we know all about the cause-effect line from which the overt motivator sequence comes. And the best thing about those things is that communication contains cause, distance, effect, with intention and duplication. And because of the duplication of the intention, then any communication line will reverse. That’s the easiest thing a communication line does is reverse, because of course it has duplication on both ends. It’s very easy for cause to become effect and effect to become cause, because there’s a duplication in the communication line. All you have to do is make a slight mistake of which is cause and which is effect, and you have the waiters, which at one time through the last century served people, in black tuxedos—you know, the guests all wore black tuxedos, and so forth—you have the waiters now wearing black tuxedos, you see?

And you look at any custom as it comes along in this universe, you are actually studying the cause-distance-effect-duplication aspect of a communication line. It’s going to reverse. Well, there’s lots of ramifications whereby we protest and we do this and we do that. But this fact of any custom you see on this planet at this time—you could absolutely count on its having been the reverse custom at an earlier date.

Now, this makes an awfully broad statement, but if you look into it, you’ll see that’s the case. You take the clothes today of women, and the clothes today of men, see? Well, you don’t have to look back very far to where you see that one flipped, you see? And you look into almost any custom you can follow it down and you will find out it slipped. It went the other way to.

So the formula of communication, and communication itself, then, is most important factor in looking for aberration. It’s very elementary why; cause, distance, effect with intention, duplication. The duplication fact then, makes the C very easily look like the E, and the E look like the C. So of course the line can reverse around the other way to. And we get all sort superstitions about overt-motivator sequences, and we get all kinds of things. Of course, that’s factual, but it’s simply based upon the nature of a communication line.

We beat somebody’s head in and we beat somebody’s head in and we somebody’s head in and we beat somebody’s head in. Of course, at cause have the intention to beat somebody’s head in, and at effect we have somebody’s head being beaten in. That’s pretty elementary. And then one fine we wake up with a headache. Where did the headache come from? Well, it slipped. One slipped. One made a misidentification of the C and the E or line, see? It was quite accidental. You’re reading a book by Montaigne or something, and it said, “And thy servant, he is a man too,” see, something this, you know? Guy just, you know, just blah . . .
(I don’t even know if Montaigne said that. But you have to add the erudite points when you don’t have your quotation dictionary handy. Besides I usually find out I can make up better quotations than they said anyhow; figure out their works were culled. I used to work on the basis that if you write enough words, you’d say something clever, and that saying things clever is usually solved in the field of philosophy by writing enough words. See, just by the law of averages you would eventually be clever. Anyway. . . Fifty thousand monkeys writing for fifty thousand years apparently by accident would write all the books of the world, and I think they did!)

Anyway, you see what happens here now? Do you see? There’s a switch on these lines, and you get what looks like an overt-motivator sequence. So almost any pc you audit at the level of Homosapiens, and so on, has got so switched so that you can absolutely count on O/W working. But as I’ve told you, it’s not a high-level concept. See, it’s limited. It only goes up so because it depends upon this error of identification, you see?

But you can always get a case result by saying, “What have you done “What have you done?” because you’ve freed up now some vicious communication line. And it’s certain that he made a misidentification from that point up, see, and so therefore we can free some somatics or something like that can practically count on the fact that if some guy has got a sore neck, so we just find out what sore necks he has caused, we will eventually tear a off couple of facsimiles of some kind or another, which will straighten it out he’ll cease to have a sore neck. Because he obviously had given somebody a sore neck, you see, if he has a sore neck. I mean, it’s that elementary.

But what is this really based on? It’s based on the misidentification of a communication line because of the duplication factor in communication. You can’t communicate without some duplication. That duplication, of course sneaks up. You can’t communicate at all without duplication.

Well, all right, if communication is so dangerous, why is any thetan communicating at all? Well, he communicates because he wants to be oriented. And we’re back to why he communicates. He wants to be oriented. Of course I don’t—then, of course, he takes his best tool, getting oriented, and proceeds to aberrate it by using it to dominate, to do people in, and to make things that he tries to identify with, see? He messes up his own communication line. In other words, he misuses his communication line.

Now, the communication line is there because he’s lost and feels the need of orientation. Hence his desire for communication. There’s an insecurity back on along the line which causes him to use this communication line. As I say, we haven’t got the full answer as to why that is. I’m just showing you what this comes from. And that gives us, directly, the itsa line. So don’t regard the itsa line as a low-level concept, it’s actually Scientology V. It’s not Scientology 1, but it’s used in Scientology 1, and I’m sure will be used well for a long period of time, will also be used very blindly in many quarters.

But let’s appreciate What we’re using. We’re rising the obsession to identify, which lies back of the communication line. But we’re using a principle higher than communication, coupled with communication, in order to orient and rehabilitate a thetan. You’ve made a full statement of processing at that moment, see, except for this one little fact: Is there anything else earlier that gave this guy an insecurity? The original one, in the absence of communication, is somewhat hard to understand—particularly at our states of case, see? A little bit hard to understand. What the devil was it?

This guy, you see, isn’t communicating, he doesn’t feel insecure, he is not protecting anything, he hasn’t got any reaching going on, he had no real reason to reach, and so forth. How did anybody get to him?

You can figure out a lot of answers to the thing, and they all wind up with a communication line mixed up in them. And of course the moment a communication line is mixed up in them you haven’t got the answer.

How did he originally feel the need of orientation and familiarization in order to be comfortable? See, how did he do this? How was this done to anybody, and how did he do it to anybody else? And if so, why? So, there is a riddle still sitting there, see? There is a riddle. But we have the walkway back to the answer to that riddle. And what you’re walking, on the line of OT, is you’re walking to the answer of that riddle. And the funny part of it is, when you put your foot on that which lies on the other side of all of the energy and all of the confusion and all of the overts and all the misidentification and everything else—which you’re handling right now as cases, and auditors, see—right on the other side of that, just as it took one step to get on the road, it only takes one step at the other end of that roadway to suddenly go OT. OT is a gradient process for a long period of time with a sudden fantastic upsurge.

You’ll get shadows of that upsurge as you’re processing somebody. You haven’t made it yet, but he all of a sudden will do something peculiar. He’ll do something very OTish—and the next forty-eight hours shake in his boots because, you know, ha-ha. Blu-uh! Guy starts to reach for the telephone and it leaps to his ear, you know? Scares hell out of him.

Next session you’ll spend processing it having happened. But that’s processable too. These are just the lines up.

But the realization at the other end, the solution to that riddle and any of its ramifications, determines more or less the state attained. In other words, processing is the cure of having to be familiarized with things and having to itsa things, and so forth. The end product of processing is no further need to have to do these things. And as soon as one attains that no further need to have to do one of these things, one would find he would suddenly snap back to all of the power that he possibly could want. At which moment he probably turns around, and he’s so mad at everybody because of that time he spent there being right that he rights the various wrongs that he was going to right, and he probably will take a dip at that point and then he’ll come back up again. And there will be various curves and toboggans along on this road that will probably look very dizzy, but that’s okay. So that’s the way it is.

Now, we’re undoing—we’re undoing, then—this obsession to itsa by using it. And because the dependency on it is so great, you’ll never get a bank taken apart, as far as I’m concerned, until it has been utilized to its full.

Now, self-determinism, pan-determinism, personal beingness, personal power, restored to the individual, is done on the road of minimal help, maximum recovery of self-determinism—or maximal recovery of self-ability to itsa. See? That’s up. Now, as the case goes along, its progress is measured directly and immediately by the degree that this is returned into the pc’s hands. Therefore you could get a fantastic number of engrams run—now let me show you how you can mess this up, see—you’d get a fantastic number of engrams run and a fantastic number of GPMs run, and the pc would be foggy and wouldn’t be very much alert, and so on.

Oh, you haven’t really harmed him. You’ve slowed down the recovery just this one way, by every time the pc says “Uh . . . let me see, uh . . . there’s a picture here, and I think it’s uh “

“Oh, all right, I’ll date it for you. Is it greater than a hundred trillion years ago? Is it less than a hundred trillion years ago? Was it a hundred trillion years ago? It’s less than. All right, is it greater than eighty trillion years; Less than eighty trillion? It’s less than,” so forth and so forth. “The, is . . .” so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so.

And the pc says, “Oh, all right. Hm-hm. Okay.” See? See the nonsense involved in this thing.

And it just goes much more subtly, see, much more subtly: “You know I think I must have been one of the Brobdingnagians.”

Little tiny head shake as one looks at the meter and sees that it did not read on Brobdingnagians, but did read on Lilliputians, see?

And then, “Oh, well, I didn’t mean anything. I was helping you out.”

You actually have the identical problem that a mother has, auditor. Some mamas solve it and some don’t. They help little Roscoe to a point where at twenty-one, little Roscoe can’t shovel soup into his gullet, see? of course there’s an equal extreme the other way. They don’t help little Roscoe to a point where little Roscoe, at the age of twenty-one, shoots them! Puts cyanide in his soup!

See, all of this is a happy mean, you see? And it isn’t constant one the next. That’s what the trouble is, because one pc requires more help another pc, because they’re at different levels of independence. And you a pc who has a very high level of independence and a very deep level of aberration, and of course you’ve got trouble! I mean, the guy can’t walk he keeps putting his feet in the stew and in the mud and everything else. And you watch this guy caroming off into doors, and it practically hurts, you know “Oh, I’ll do it, I’ll do it!” and at that moment, why, spills the tureen over his head, you see?

Well, that’s all within the margin of an auditor. That’s where his ability to play comes in, is how much does it take to improve this guy’s independence and self-determinism? How much does it take to improve his ability to know? How much help does he need in order to know? And you’ll find out that varying quantity, see?

Here’s this poor guy off the street, he doesn’t know which end the door is you know? And he’s helped enormously because you actually show him where the door is. It makes him a bit better. You understand, from there on out he can find the door, he can itsa the door from there on out. See? So you haven’t taken all of his itsas away from him.

All right, well, that’s the extreme case. But let’s handle that extreme wrong. Let’s handle this just dead wrong: We tell him he never can know where the door is. See? And let’s build him a special set of rails so that when he goes toward the door he runs into it. And every time he walks around it a particular end, why, he’ll collide with the door, see? Well, at this point, of course, you have exceeded the degree of. In other words, you haven’t helped him at all. You have deteriorated his ability.

And what you want to do is take what ability you have, that you find there, don’t you see, and gradually uncreate any dependence that is created. And the perfect formula is reduce it. See? Give him all the help he needs to get along and then gradually reduce it. That is always safe. Give him whatever help he needs to get along and then reduce it—which makes something like 3N into about four or five different routines, which is quite remarkable. And eventually, why, he isn’t even given a line plot. But that’s getting pretty adventurous, don’t you see, because he can get himself in more trouble without a line plot. It’s almost a dirty trick to turn somebody loose into a wildcat GPM before he’s run a few that are line-plotted, you know? You can make a pc fly, but then the pc says, “I don’t think . . . I don’t think . . . uh, I don’t think this sequence follows on through this way. Uh . . . I think it uh . . . cuts off someplace here. Something cuts off.”

“Well, follow your line plot! Follow your line plot! The line plot. Give me the next item, the next item. That’s what I want, next item.”

“Yeah, but uh “

“Next item ! “

Well, even if it was there, the pc sooner or later is going to be right enough to convince you that it isn’t—because you never let him find out.

Now, combining all of this nice sense of judgment is the extra bonus of your own flubs, because you cannot reduce them to zero. Don’t ever try. Don’t ever go beating your brains out. Because you get caught in cross-plays of communication where you didn’t quite understand what the pc said when you thought you did, don’t you see? And so you said, then, at that time—the pc is saying, “Let’s see, what was that series we found? It was uh . . . Let’s see, I think I found early . . . earlier that such a series we found . . .” and so on.

Well, you say, “Well, you’ve already found it, you see? It’s been found for several sessions, and it’s 25.4 trillion years ago,” see? And he’s trying to find this date, you see? He’s trying to re-remember what the date is, and you’re just trying to get the series started, see? So you say, “Well, that was—that—oh, you’re talking about the 25.4-trillion-year-ago series.”

(sigh) He says, “Yeah. Yeah, I guess so. Uh . . . I don . . . I—I do—uh . . . get . . . uh the . . . No, you see, uh—that isn’t the point. Um . . . (sigh)”

And you finally let him stagger through this, because you’ve, see, flicked his attention and slipped him the mickey with the wrong communication line because you didn’t understand. That wasn’t what he was saying at all. He’s trying to find that lock incident that defended on the series, and his communication being a little bit blurry, why, he’s not really communicating what he thinks he is communicating to you, so you make a mistake on it. And because the pc’s communication line is so often fogged up in session, for an auditor, then, to do a perfect job of handling the communication line is impossible, because it depends upon the pc’s articulation and communication being perfect.

Sometime a pc will say something to you like this: “Well, I suppressed my gains for this session.” And what do you do? Well, is he giving you an itsa? Is he announcing a catastrophe? Is he getting off a suppression? See? Does he want you to do something? What’s the intention of his communication? Well, maybe he doesn’t even know, either. And almost anything you answer to this, you’re going to be wrong! See?

So don’t go around in fear of being wrong, and don’t teach people to be afraid that they’re going to mishandle one of these lines, because you’re teaching them to be afraid of something that’s going to be inevitable—inevitable.
 
The pc all of a sudden looks up and he gets a starey-eyed look in his eyes and he says, “Say, I don’t think that’s true.” You’re running a Helatrobus implant, you see, and “Say, I don’t—I don’t think that’s true.”

And you say, “Well, what?”

He says, “That. You know? I just don’t think it is.”

Well, what do you do? Is he talking about the Helatrobus implant? Probability not. He’s skipped into something. What’s happened here? What did he collided with? We don’t know. All right, to ask him for more data than got is a fatal auditing error, so we ask him for more data than he’s got and we are in trouble. We don’t ask him for the data he does have, we are in trouble. Don’t you see?

Because these are the troubles of handling an indefinite communication line, and troubles always originate. The communication line at its source, indefinite, so therefore the handling of it becomes a situation. So that makes you have to get very slippy. And you have to learn various things about the intention line—which we’re not particularly discussing today.

“Do you want to tell me about it?” Ha-ha-ha-ha—cut your throat. do you put the pc’s attention on anything? How do you put his attention on a chair? You say “chair,” don’t you? How do you put his attention on a house? You say “house,” don’t you? How do you put his attention on a date? You say “date,” don’t you? How do you put the pc’s attention on the auditor’ say “auditor,” don’t you? “Do you want to tell me about it?” Clang! Out of session, ARC break, house falling down, everything going to pieces, gains all wrapped up, everything betrayed—Christ, what happened? Ha-ha!

You in vain try to trace back anything you did. Naturally, you blame yourself for it. Well, you, in actual fact, didn’t do anything except inadvertently direct the pc’s attention in a direction where it wasn’t going to give him a sudden attention shift, because of your misunderstanding of the thing the pc was talking about in the first place. Do you see the liabilities of this kind of thing?

So, know how to do it right, and do it right most of the time! See? Thats the only thing you can expect and hope for.

All right. This pc itsa line is going to get better to the degree that it’s permitted to exist. This doesn’t mean to the degree that you let the pc itsa necessarily. It means the degree that you keep the pc’s attention directed by directions where he can find things to identify in his bank. And when he’s found things in his bank to identify, let him identify them.

You say, “All right. Now, I want you to take a look at that incident that has the robots in it. Good. All right. That’s fine. All right.”

And he says, “Say, uh “

“Yes, I know. They’re robots.”

Well, I’d just say that was too corny for words, see?

All right, you keep up that sort of thing with a pc very long, and tell him what he is looking at always—see, it isn’t a 100 percent prop there, either. You sometimes tell a pc what he’s looking at, see? You put attention on the track to some incident that you know is there, and he can know is there, well, you’re certainly giving him something to itsa, aren’t you. So you’ve given him something to itsa, and he’ll start itsaing it, has a clam, see? But if you prevent his itsaing it after you have given it to itsa, you will see a gradual deterioration over a period of intensives - not one session, it’s a long period - of his ability to identify. You’ll see it deteriorating.

You’re creating a dependence on your metering. You can create a dependence on your recognition, a dependence on his confirmation as to whether or not he’s right. He says, “Well, I don’t know if it was the cowboys in white hats or the black hats, and cow . . . You look on the meter,” he will say. “Look on the meter.”

One of the ways an auditor gets this started is invalidating a pc’s data. He invalidates the pc’s data a little bit, and—you know, tends to somewhat, and sounds doubtful, and the pc sounds this—and finally the pc will say “Look on the meter.” And the auditor cuts his throat and looks on the meter. See? It’s a case of he should say, “Well, I believe you. l don’t have to prove it,” see?

“If you don’t believe me, look at the meter.”

Proper response is, “Well, I believe you. Go ahead, tell me what it is.” Don’t look on the meter.

Eventually you’ll get a habit started whereby every time the pc wants to communicate anything to you, he convinces you by showing you that it bangs on the needle. And his itsa line will start deteriorating. See, this can be done in various ways. That’s confirming his itsa line, which leaves him with no positiveness. It leaves him with no sensitivity as to what’s right and what’s wrong.

Well, that’s an ability that you are trying to improve. And if you look on it as an ability that you’re trying to improve and as the chief ability which is there to be improved in a case, you really won’t make many mistakes on it. Your mistakes will be cut to a minimum. But if you look on a case as something from which significances have to be removed in any way that they can be removed, regardless of the self-determinism of the pc and regardless of his ability and regardless of his knowingness and his recognition and so forth, oddly enough, you will still make it, but you’ve multiplied your time factor considerably. Time factor is going way up—ten to one, something like that— because you’re deteriorating his ability.

Now, just auditing the pc in general, you’ll see you will inevitably get an improvement of the ability by the removal of charge. Now, if at the same time you’re creating a dependency, to the degree that you’re increasing . . . You see? You can increase and decrease, and whereby he’s getting more track and more charge in his vicinity, his actual potential of improvement is being cut back by his dependency on the itsa of the auditor, see? It improves anyhow. But the auditor is cutting it back, and he’s just costing himself more auditing time, more auditing time, more auditing time, more auditing time. More difficulty, more ARC breaks, more upsets.

There’s many a way, many a way by which all this can be handled in various ways. See, you have what you call an ARC-breaky-type pc. Well now, this pc probably has a high degree of independence and probably has a high degree of itsa ability already, but possibly is a bit swamped with charge, see?

All right. Now we take this pc and we deteriorate his ability to itsa, you see, by creating a dependency on the auditor. You know, by telling him everything, by telling him everything. You know, “That read. That didn’t read,” and so on. of course, the funny part of it is—there’s one other point of this I should mention in passing—if you don’t tell a pc when an item is finally discharged, in the early stages of running GPMs, he’ll leave items charged, and the mechanics of the bank will cause him to bounce and ARC break. See? So that again is one of these factors whereby you’re putting in the itsa line—itsa discharge.

Now, but sooner or later the pc is going to start telling you when it is discharged. Well, that’s damn well when you better stop telling the pc that it’s clean. Do you understand? You just better stop telling him at that point.

Ah, but you’ve got an interesting problem here. Maybe you’ve stopped telling him at the point where he still can’t tell. Now you’re going to have hell raised, because you’re going to have him stuck in incidents. You’re going to have RIs live all over the place, you’re going to have his postulates live and so forth. I think I’d start working on a campaign on him: “Well, run it until you’re very sure it’s flat” is the kind of a campaign I’d start running, is “Get that item until you’re very sure it’s flat.”

“All right,” he says, “that’s flat.”

“Okay, say it again. Good. Fine. You’re right, that’s flat,” see?

And he all of a sudden, “See, I can tell you.” You know?

“All right, good. Good,” see? “Fine.” And wean him. And gradually don’t check, see? Don’t check. Say, “All right, I can depend on you.” Because he can tell you, eventually, when it’s flat.

He’ll also get very bored with an item and leave it half-unflat. You can sometimes make a citizen out of him by letting him do so. Trouble is, he’s liable to have bounced and gone into something else.
Now, there’s various problems involved here. I’m not trying to tell you this is simple. Don’t get so involved in the problems, however, that you miss the basic mechanics of the situation. Basic mechanics of the situation: the pc is the one who is living with this bank, and if he can’t tell what’s in it, and so forth, he can’t live with it. Obvious? I mean, that’s one of these ne plus ultra things. You’re unfortunately, or fortunately, not going to be at his side for the next two hundred trillion billion squillion years. See, you’re not going to be there telling him whether it is a GPM . . . you see? Going to have to find this out for himself. So sooner or later, you’re going to have to kick him off with regard to this bank.
The time to start is when you start auditing him. You start auditing him, why, start weaning him. Don’t increase his dependency. Decrease it. Give him all the help he needs! But isn’t that a tricky statement? How much help does he need? Well, you know if he doesn’t have line plots and a design on the track and the concepts of life, and that sort of thing—if he doesn’t have something like that—he’ll never put his foot on the road at all. And we know that if he doesn’t have a line plot for a standard GPM that he’s got to run, and so forth, we know he’ll wrap himself around a telegraph pole, man. He’ll practically finish himself off by giving you wrong items and upside-down items and missing items, and so forth. And the next thing you know, why, the penalty is much worse than the cure, here. See?

Well, where do we go? Well, how much help do we give him? Well, we give him all the help he needs. How much help does he need? Well, that is something you establish individually in each pc.

You’re going to get ahold of some pc sometime or another—you know, he possibly hasn’t been down here long, or he got here by accident, or something of the sort. And this pc cognites on the Axioms, knocks out the bank, does Change of Space Processing between your auditing room and the next building for a while, goes around and thanks you very much; you’re left with your jaw dropped because you haven’t had an opportunity to get your meter on and tested.

Well, don’t feel so betrayed that you didn’t get a chance to audit. You audited. So, there are various degrees by which you have to approach this problem, and that’s the difference of pcs.

Now, these very, very ARC-breaky pcs sometimes get a reputation for being ARC breaky and they get very upset this way and so on. It’s actually where their concept of their own independence is being invidiously cut up by people putting itsas in for them. And the charge on the bank is too great, so that they get into this stuff and they’ll dramatize at the drop of a hat. And this is upsetting to them. It’s more upsetting to them to dramatize, but how did they dramatize? They dramatized only because somebody put in the itsa line they were not able to.

So, what do you do with such a pc? Well, a pc who’s routinely ARC breaky must obviously have something wrong with the itsa line. Well, he wasn’t the result of auditing. It was probably something that occurred before auditing, because we are not in the business of aberrating people. Well, it must have occurred in some aberrative area.

Well, you can do such a thing as give them an eighteen-button Prepcheck on the itsa line. Simple. Now, an eighteen-button Prepcheck is not thrown out by the itsa line because the eighteen buttons are the select choice, very best, grade A, straight-from-the-ocean itsas. You realize that a Prepcheck is almost the perfect series of itsas. Most powerful buttons, so they’re [the] most powerful itsas in existence since the beginning of the universe. “Since your beginning of travail, has anything been suppressed?” Wonder how long that would run. But that’s an itsa, because he must have itsa’d by suppressing. So you’re getting off the crisscross, see? If he suppressed it, then he can itsa it. If you get the suppression off, then he can itsa.

These are almost perfect itsa lines. The Prepcheck actually comes into its own. But very interesting about a Prepcheck: You can prepcheck the itsa line, see, on that. That takes the cake, man.
Now, you take one of these very ARC-breaky pcs that has a very great reputation for being ARC breaky, and you put the itsa line into some comprehensible thing. Very often, if you just explain to them what the itsa line is and prepcheck it, you’ll be better off than trying to redefine something, because you won’t then be prepchecking the itsa line. But this takes some doing.

An auditor has always got to be able to interpret the auditing command and clarify the auditing command so that the pc knows what it is. One of the best ways to clarify an auditing command like “Recall an ARC break” is explain an ARC break and give it to him, because you use any other word, you’ll run into some GPM—almost certain to run into GPMs. “ARC break” is contained in no GPM and therefore is a totally nonbackground word. See? Give him a new word, new symbol.
All right, so you say “itsa line”: “Well, your—your recognition of things. Your consideration of things. What you think life is all about. Your opinions. Somebody says, ‘What’s a cat?’ and you say, ‘It’s a four-legged animal.’ I mean, your right to do that.” You know, go on, go on, explain it any way you want. Prepcheck the itsa line. Or get some other designation for it. But prepcheck it.

And you’ll be very fascinated that the pc who is the ARC-breaky pc is not really ARC breaking because of auditing and bypassed charge. This pc’s itsa line is cut right here and now as his most colossal PTP—by something else, nothing to do with auditing.

I’ll give you a marvelous example of how somebody’s itsa line is cut right here and now: He’s on this planet, isn’t he? If he tries to get off, he hits the between-lives area. His itsa line is cut because he can’t itsa anything else in the universe. He can look at the stars, but he can’t tell what condition they’re in. See, he’s the prisoner on the island who looks toward the mainland longingly, so his itsa line is cut.

See, there’s all kinds of ways of cutting the itsa line, don’t you see? No reason to dream them all up for the pc. Put in a Prepcheck on his itsa line. You’ll be astonished. He’ll make some case progress—sudden case progress, and cease to be ARC breaky.

Other ways of attacking this same problem sometimes give us the very, very fascinating and interesting aspect of somebody who has found that the ARC break is a solution to some problem. So he solves the problem by ARC breaking. There’s various ramifications, but he normally runs into this when you prepcheck the itsa line. You have a big piece of understanding here. It’s a big, new, whole piece of understanding. It’s a new piece of the jigsaw puzzle which has fitted into place and made citizens out of most of the center pieces and has shown us that there’s just this little few out here on the edge, of how come a guy had to identify and familiarize himself in order to feel alive and secure? How come a guy got into an obsessed necessity to itsa? That little piece is about the only piece missing right now, and it’s up here in the corner. And missing just to this degree: You show me a problem, very shortly later, I’ll show you the answer.

Thank you very much.

THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING

A lecture given on
6 February 1964

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Now, what is the date, here? What’s the date?

Audience: 6th of February.

February what?

Audience: 6.

6—6th of February. What year?

Audience: A.D. 14.

Thank you. Thank you. February 6, A.D. 14, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. I’m going to talk to you about a very arduous subject. The subject is the communication cycle, and I think you might like to know something about the communication cycle as used in auditing. It’s a new subject—new to many.

If you look over communication, you’ll find out that the magic of communication is about the only thing that makes auditing work. And if you could sit down to a meter—a one-hand electrode—all by yourself and run some process on yourself, it’d make a citizen out of you. And the reason it’d make a citizen out of you, is you would see a little bit of tone arm action at first, or if you tripped across something like an active, loud, large GPM, why, you might get yourself a quarter or a half a tone arm division, or a couple of needle flashes. Now, you can always get a needle flash. You can always get something of that sort.

Now, the amount of tone arm action you would get doing this would make you blink, because it’s none. And you could run some hot process on you that had been run by some auditor and which gave him good TA—this process that has been run, give you good TA, you see, when the auditor was auditing it—then you sit down there with a one-hand electrode while the process is still hot and run the commands on yourself, you’re going to get for a moment the residual of the auditing. That is to say, the auditor will have stirred up enough so that you’ll see a little bit of charge go off, and then your tone arm is going to go dead—and it’s going to stay dead.

Now, the reason for this has to do with the thetan in this universe. Now, he has begun to consider himself MEST, and he’s begun to consider himself mass. And the being who considers himself mass, of course, responds to the laws of electronics and the laws of Newton, and is actually incapable of generating very much, you see, or—which is what we’re interested in—arising very much. There’s not very much going to disappear there in the way of mass. And this is a very discouraging sort of an activity.

Now, I have had to explore this particular field of auditing—self-auditing, because most anybody does it, and so forth—and what was this all about. And I have even gotten ambitious enough to run an actual GPM, bangity-bangity, bangity-bang, on a one-hand electrode. That makes your hair stand on end. Well, it made my hair stand on end. And my auditor fished me out. It didn’t kill me, I was able to breathe afterwards—that is, if I didn’t move much. But the same GPM, run with the same items and so forth, would produce upwards to 175 TA divisions, down. And the GPM, self-audited, produced 2.
Now, what was this all about? What was this all about? It tells us (now, it isn’t that experiment; other experiments were made in this particular line)— and it tells us that an individual considers himself MESTy, or massy, if you see, and therefore he has to have a second terminal. And a second terminal is required to discharge the energy.

Now, a lot of auditors go further than this, and they go downhill to a point where they think they’re being the second terminal to the degree that they think they pick up the somatics and illnesses of the person they’re auditing. Well, get that.

Actually, there is no backflow of any kind hits the auditor. There is no backflow hits the auditor of any kind. But if he is so convinced that he himself is MEST, why, of course, he will turn on somatics and everything else in echo to the pc, because he’s simply doing a matched terminal with the pc, don’t you see? Actually, nothing hits the auditor. It has to be mocked up or envisioned by him. I think you find that’s quite amusing, because there are whole schools of healing, back in the early days of Greece particularly, where they picked up the pain out of somebody’s ‘ead, or off somebody’s arm, and they got the somatic very nicely and took it away and dumped it in the trash bin. Spiritual healing has this in its textbooks, and so forth. Well, that is its genus, is just this two-pole proposition.

Now, you don’t have to know anything about electricity or electronics in order to go into this very deeply, but it’s obvious to you that for a motor to run or for something to occur, like a light go on, that two poles have to be involved. And energy passing between two terminals, or two poles, makes an interchange, and it gives you what you call electric light.

Now, of course, that is the burning of energy. In this particular case you don’t have the burning of energy, you have the as-ising of energy where the auditor and the pc is concerned. Now, the ability to hold a position, or the ability to hold two terminals apart, is a definition of power. Not how much energy can be thrown by a unit, but the base, the strain that is put on the base. The ability to hold these two positions. That’s a little bit outside of what we’re talking about. But here we have two poles. We have an auditor and a pc, and as long as the auditor audits and the pc replies, we get an apparent exchange of energy from the pc’s point of view, which doesn’t hit the auditor; but because they thinly of themselves, don’t you see, at this low, subvolitional level, as terminals, why, you get these exchanges of energy going on, you see? And nothing hits the auditor, and it anises as far as the pc is concerned.

But you have set up, in essence, a two-pole system, and that will bring about an as-ising of mass. It isn’t burning the mass, it is as-ising the mass. And that’s why there is nothing hitting the auditor. Now, that is the essence of the situation, and the magic involved in auditing is contained in the communication cycle of auditing. You see, now you are handling the smooth interchange between these two poles. Eventually, the individual will get up to a point where he does not consider himself to be matter, and this no longer occurs. When you’ve got half of a pc’s actual GPMs run out, you start running into trouble. I’m running into that trouble right now.

Unless the pc makes up her mind, or recognizes the truth of the situation, I can’t knock any energy off. I can ask the question, and the meter is the deadest-looking meter you ever saw in your life. Yet there’s a red-hot GPM sitting under this sort of thing. See, there’ll be a red-hot item or a red-hot this or a red-hot that. But I have to ask the pc whether or not that is it. And when the pc looks at it and decides that that is it, or that isn’t it, only then do I get an active meter.

And this is most amazing. This is most amazing. The GPM can be sitting right there ready to read, and unless the pc has looked at it and has thought it over, why, nothing happens on the meter. Yet this same pc, before those—half of the bank was run out, don’t you see; all I had to do was sneeze at the meter and I got rocket reads on anything, and the pc didn’t know anything about what was rocket-reading and what wasn’t rocket-reading. You get the advance? The advance is upwards toward knowing one is one, see? And you get out of these automatic physical-energy manifestations of the physical universe. And getting out of these things, you then get to a point where you’ve got intention.
 
Now, what is one of these GPMs, anyway, but a method of limiting the pc’s ability to intend? And that is the whole idea behind implanting or any thing of that nature. The whole idea is that if he intends positive, he gets negative. If he intends negative, he gets positive. So, therefore, he cannot decide.

Now, if you take somebody and every time he says yes you say no, he eventually will get into an indecisional state of mind. He can no longer intend yes, completely, see? So this is how you could wear somebody down, break his spirit, or make him a private in the army. Get the idea? Every time he has a thought, you deny it. You see? There’s where you get your original power of choice. The ideas of power of choice—and all such other ideas. The ideas of self-determinism versus other-determinism. All these other various ideas stem out of this alone. It is the ability to intend something.

Now, somebody cannot write. He intends to write, and he’ll go around talking about writing, but he doesn’t write. Well, what is happening there, he is intending to write, but something is intending that he not write. And that is his mind kicking back at him, which is simply a positive-negative proposition there, of two poles. Do you see this?
 
All right. He intends to talk Arabic, but the mind says that he can’t talk Arabic. See, there’s your positive-negative. He intends not to talk Arabic and finds himself chattering strange phrases, and you get these speakings in foreign tongues that the hysterical religionist very often is found to have, and so forth. In other words, you get the positive and the negative proposition. Well, a person has to be very MESTy indeed before they are subject to these particular phenomena. And the more MESTy that they consider themselves, the more enmeshed in matter that they consider themselves, and the more energied up they are, why, the more trouble they have with this particular action. And, of course, as you go upscale this phenomena drops away as progress is made in this particular direction.
 
Now, what value is the auditor? Well, the auditor, of course, is at his greatest value at the lowest level of the case, is necessary all the way up through to step six—end of actual GPMs—is necessary all the way. But the auditor at very low levels can produce some of the most interesting phenomena. And it was in the Dianetic days that they were able to absolutely break their hearts, because you could say to somebody so-so-so-and-so and so-and-so, and you could handle engrams, you could handle matters associated with the bank, and the pc would lose his or her arthritis, would lose psychosomatic ills of one kind or another, and never find out about it.
 
In other words, the auditor could sit there and as-is bits of the thing, just by the automatic mechanical process of a two-way communication with the pc. But the pc was so snarled up and so sunk in, and considered themselves so much a brick or a piece of rock or a wooden slab, that they would never find out about it. And after the auditor had cured up somebody’s lumbosis completely, why, the person would say, “Well, yes, but you haven’t done anything about my worries about my wife.” Well, yes, he was incurable, he was bedridden, he had to go around—the most he could look forward to was a wheelchair. And the auditor would fix him all up and he’s walking around now, and he complains because he hasn’t had his wife straightened out.

In other words, he was actually influenced without his knowledge. Do you understand this, now, Tom a two-pole arrangement? Wherever an individual, wherever an individual, then, thinks of himself as an animal, as matter, as a bit of mud, as algae which has coadulated [coadunated] into the difficulties of manhood, when you get these various things, what do you eventually see? You see a whole scientific world indulging in the philosophy of “man is matter.” So the spiritual values and natures of man are, of course, lost completely. Only auditing can restore these. Nothing else is going to restore them.

But when you look over the difficulties of auditing, realize that you are handling simply the difficulties of a communication cycle. And when you, yourself, as the auditor, do not permit a smooth flow between you as a terminal and the pc as a terminal, and the pc as a terminal back to you, you get a no as-ising of matter: So you don’t get tone arm action.

Now, part of the trick of course is what has to be as-ised, and how do you go about it? But that we call technique. And if you remove technique, if you remove technique from the area—let’s not worry about the particulars, what button has to be pressed or stepped on. We’re not going to wonder about this—what button. We’re going to wonder only about the communication cycle. We find, oddly enough, if the auditor is actually capable of making the pc willing to talk to him, he wouldn’t have to hit a button to get tone arm action. Do you see this?

Now, the person who is insisting continuously upon a new technique, a new technique, or a very fancy technique, or that sort of thing, is neglecting the basic tool of his auditing, which is the communication cycle of auditing. He cannot make the pc get tone arm action. Well, he can’t make the pc get tone arm action, basically, because the communication cycle doesn’t exist. And when the communication cycle does not exist in an auditing session, we get this horrible compounding of the felony of trying to get a technique, but the technique cannot be administered to the pc because there’s no communication cycle to administer it.

So basic auditing is called basic auditing because it goes prior to the technique. The communication cycle must exist before the technique can exist. And, therefore, any case supervisor is very, very well advised to merely heal up the various points and portions that are missing as far as that communication cycle is, and hit it as buttons. And in view of the fact that the auditor is trying and the auditor is doing something, to actually neglect whether or not the auditing is good or bad—that’s up to an auditing instructor, isn’t it?—just neglect that. But just look at the case from the basis of “What parts of this communication cycle are awry?” and “What isn’t here in the form of a response to the auditing question?” And simply heal those points up.

Now, if you had a man lying unconscious in the street, you certainly wouldn’t be thinking up what technique to run on him. If you wanted to bring him back to life and livingness, what you would want to do is get h m to talk to you, or breathe, or flutter an eyelid. That would be something. Oddly enough, the communication cycle all by itself will cause him to flutter that eyelid.

You can take an unconscious person who has been in a coma for some time, and by picking up their hand and making them touch the pillow, and even touch your arm—you know, picking up the hand (they have no volition here)—picking up the hand, touching the shoulder, picking up the hand, touching the pillow (giving them the command at the same time, talking), and so forth, that person will come back to life. This is the greatest magic that anybody ever saw. It’s very startling, but look, you’re just trying to get this man into communication with the auditor and communication with his surroundings. And he’ll come back to battery. And there’s no technique.

So, that should demonstrate to you that the fundamental entrance to the case is not on a level of technique, but on a level of the communication cycle. Now, all you have to do is mark out how many branches of this communication cycle can there be. There can be a communication cycle between the pc and the auditor, and the pc and the auditing room. And that’s about it.

Now you can get particular, and you can have parts of the auditing room, or you can have specific portions of the auditor or the auditor’s beingness—you can mark down to that. And then you can maybe go afield from this particular zone or area—if the person is already in a communication cycle with the auditor—you can go afield and start to address his present time problems. Now you can address whether or not his wife fixes the tea properly or puts arsenic in the coffee, as he is worried about. Now you can address that sort of thing.

But this, of course, because it is distant from where you are sitting, requires a technique. First you have to know what he is worried about out there because it is not present and visible for you to see, or for him to see. So the technique selects out what he is worried about—a little form of assessment, don’t you see? And now you’re into techniques and processing, having left the field of the communication cycle. If the field of the communication cycle with the auditing room and with the auditor is all solid ground, and if all of that is squared away, you can now worry about technique.

Now, the auditor who comes tearing down to you sometime as—when you’re D-of-Ping someplace—and the auditor who comes down and says to you, “Ho-ha-hai, I . . . I just can’t get anyplace on Mrs. Hepsibah. Can’t get anyplace on Mrs. Hepsibah,” and you say, “Well, why don’t you run so-and-so and so-and-so,” will inevitably come back (you give him a technique, you see)—will inevitably come back a half an hour or so later and say, “That doesn’t work either.” And you can keep up this silly cycle for a long, long time. Because of course there is no technique being delivered to the pc because there is no communication cycle present.

Now, what needs to be repaired is the communication cycle, and when you’ve got a communication cycle repaired, then you can audit a technique. It’s as elementary as that. Now, there are many parts of this communication cycle that can be addressed, because you have the pc there and you have the auditor there. And, of course, the first part of it that has to be addressed is the fact that the person is having a session and is in a room and is being faced by an auditor.

Now, if you take all those and write down the categories—you write down all the categories, all the different little bits that can be written down that are part of this (it’s best for you as an auditor to imagine them rather than for me to give you a long catalog of them, you see)—and then figure out how you’re going to get him into communication on each one of these points, realizing that communication is simply a familiarization process based on reach and withdraw. Even when you speak to a pc, even when you speak to a person, you are reaching; when you cease to speak you are withdrawing. When he hears you, he has something withdrawn—and at that moment he’s a bit withdrawn, don’t you see?—but then he reaches toward you with the answer. And you’ll see him go into a withdraw while he thinks it all over. See, he gets back and, well, he’s—”Which . . . why did my grandfather have to marry the girl?” See? And he thinks over this, and you’ll see him think this over, and he thinks that cycle through on a withdrawal, don’t you see? And then he will reach back to the auditor.

Now, he’s already reached this reason. Now he will reach the auditor with the reason, and he will say that was it. Now you have made an exchange from the pc to the auditor, and will see it reflect on a meter. Because that exchange, now, is giving an as-ising of energy.

In the absence of that communication, you do not get meter action. So the fundamental of auditing—the fundamental of auditing—is the communication cycle! That’s the fundamental of auditing! And that is really the great discovery of Dianetics and Scientology. It is such a simple discovery that—and everybody does it. But you realize that nobody knew anything about communication when it came along. The number of chaps in communication companies and that sort of thing, who fall around our neck saying “Really!” you know?

You say, “Well, communication, it consists of cause, distance, effect,” you know?

“I . . . yeah! By golly, it does, you know!”

Well, it’s just this sort of thing. It’s a fundamental that everybody knew was there. They’ve been watching apples fall off trees for a very long time and Newton had to come along and see an apple fall off a tree, see? And he said, “Hey, apples fall off trees, and when they leave the tree they hit the ground!” See? Everybody says, “Wow!” you know? “Terrific!” you know? And his name has gone singing down through the ages, because he noticed that apples fell off trees.
It’s always this sort of a thing. It’s always this sort of a thing which escapes the attention of people. Because MEST is basically very complex stuff. And being very complex (composed as it is out of electrons and molecules and minerals and gee-whizzes of all kinds or another, wavelengths and all this sort of thing), because of its tremendous complexity—so complex that nobody can understand it, they can only. .. You know? Therefore, people who are very plowed in, you might say, into matter, and who are themselves thinking as matter, think very complexly. And they cannot observe the simplest things with which they are confronted. And they observe none of these things.

Now, you look over this. I call this to your attention. The ease with which you can handle a communication cycle depends on your ability to observe what the pc is doing. Now, we have to add to the simplicity of the communication cycle, the obnosis—the observation of the obvious. If the pc hasn’t been talking to you, and if the pc hasn’t said anything to you for a very long time, it is no time for you to be thinking on the subject of “What do I say to the pc?” You say, “What do I say to the pc?”

Please! I invite your attention that your inspection of what you are doing should have ended with your training, and thereafter is taken up exclusively with the observation of what the pc is doing or is not doing. And your handling of a communication cycle ought to be so instinctive, and so good, that you are never worried over here about what you do now. “Let’s see, am r doing it right or am I not doing it right? Let’s see. I wonder how my acknowledgment was that time. Did I say ‘Okay’ in an artificial frame of voice or should I say it naturally, like ‘O-kay.’ No, that wasn’t right.” No. The time for you to get this all fixed up is in training. And in actual auditing, the communication cycle that you watch is the pc’s. That’s the communication cycle you watch. You know yours is good. So you don’t worry about it anymore.

Now, if you know your communication cycle is good, you haven’t any longer got to be upset about whether you’re doing it right or not. And you ought to tic well enough trained that when somebody says “catfish” to you, you look at them and recognize they are no longer saying “catfish” and have finished saying “catfish.” And having finished saying “catfish,” it is time for you to acknowledge. But you only acknowledge because they have finished the communication. And your observation is simply limited to the fact that they have completed their communication, and that is your observation. Your observation is the observation of the communication cycle of the pc. And you get good enough so that you just lay in mothballs your worry about your communication cycle when you’re finished training. That’s the time it goes into mothballs. You understand? You know how to do it now. Your business is the communication responses and cycles of the pc. Do you see that?

ThisPC: You ask me, “What technique shall we run on this pc?” Technique! What are you doing with a technique? Let’s look at the pc for a few minutes. “Oh yes, but,” we say, “well, the pc has got to have something to talk about.” Oh, come, come, come! You’ve been in Scientology or Dianetics all this time, and you can’t dream up something for him to talk about? It’s as corny as this: “You had any problems lately?” See? Or it’s corny as this: “How are you doing?” Let’s get this pc to talk so we can see what the score is. Now this is the true—the true—touch of genius on a case. This is what makes that auditor who can crack any case, and when it’s absent, has an auditor who couldn’t crack an egg if he stepped on it. This is the difference. This is the difference. It’s whether or not this auditor can observe the communication cycle of the pc and repair its various lacks

Now, I’m now talking to you—when I talk to you about the auditor’s communication cycle—I’m talking to you about something that’s so simple. It simply consists of asking a question that the pc can answer, and then observing that the pc answers it. And when the pc has answered it, observing that the pc has completed the answer to it—that the pc has answered it and has completed his answer to it and is through answering it. And then saying “Cheerios”— giving him the acknowledgment—bang! like that. Say, “All right. You finished that,” and then giving him something else to do. That’s all. You can ask the same question. Or you can ask another question. It doesn’t matter. But the communication cycle is simply asking something that the pc can answer. There’s a lot of little trickery involved in this, because that includes clearing the auditing command. See?

You don’t say to somebody who’s got a—you got a five-year-old kid. And you say to him, “Have you had any marital troubles lately?” and I don’t think you’re going to get much of an answer. See, it requires that much good sense: Ask a question that can be answered, and then ask it of the pc so the pc can hear it and knows what he’s being asked, and then the pc answers the question; and being bright enough to know that the pc is answering that question, not some other question, and then knowing—and this, by the way, is a very interestingly developed instinct—you can tell when the pc is finished. And if you don’t develop that instinct, you’re very often lost. You’ll say, “Well, did he end, or didn’t he end?” and so on. Well, some auditors try to make it up, making another technique inside a technique, like, “Have you finished answering that auditing question?” of course this is so much balderdash. You should be able to know. It is a piece of knowingness. See, you just know he’s finished. He looks like he’s finished, he feels like he’s finished, your telepathy tells you he’s finished, you get the idea? It’s that esoteric.

He said, “Well, I . . . I didn’t have a grandfather.” And you now know that he is not going to say any more. See? It’s part sense. It’s part his vocal intonation. But it’s an instinct that you develop. You know he’s finished. So, knowing he’s finished, then you tell him he’s finished. It’s like pointing out the bypassed charge, don’t you see? “You’ve answered it,” you say. “You answered it.” Actually, if you said “Okay. Good,” you might as well say “You’ve answered it. You have now found and located the bypassed charge in answer to the question, and there it is, and you have said it.” See? That’s the magic of acknowledgment, don’t you see? But, naturally, you say, “Good,” “Very good,” you know, “All right,” “Okay.”

But if you got a long continuing thing, you don’t want to stop him too hard. So the degree of stop you put on your acknowledgment is also your good sense. Because you can acknowledge a pc so hard—and if your impingement on pcs is way up in the stars—that you finish the session right there. You just end the session. You waste all that remaining two hours that you had to go.

So he’s talking on a consecutive line of thought and you acknowledge as though you’re not going to ask it anymore, ever. And he won’t think of it anymore, ever, either. So frankly, now, when you’ve acknowledged it, you knew he was finished and you said he was finished by acknowledging it, and then you gave him something else to answer! Now, that—aho-hu-rrrrrr-mmm! Second we got into itsa, we got into trouble, man! Because we dropped out giving him something else to answer. And an auditor will sit there without giving the pc anything to do. And you’ve got to develop a sensitivity. When did that pc finish answering what you asked? At that point you say “Cheers,” and give him the next question.

But when you don’t have that sensitivity, the pc answers it, gets nothing Tom you, you sit there and look at him; his social machinery goes into response that “We must not be sitting here quietly doing nothing.” Some pcs take up humming, I hear—because the auditor hasn’t acknowledged and given him a new question! The auditor just is not there, that’s all.

Now, it’s 811 very well to do that sort of thing in training, and it’s forgivable, but not in an auditing session, really. Now, after all. Pc has finished answering the question, “Cheers! Thank you. Good. All right.” Now you know you’ve acknowledged something. You finished off that cycle, so you better ask him, “Do fish swim?” man! “Are there any other problems you’ve been worried about?” See, he’s finished that one. “Anything else upset you between sessions?” See? But be in there, man! Don’t stand there tangle-footed saying “What do I do now? Oh!” Because at this point the pc is going to overrun. He’s going to start making a session out of it, he’s going to go onto auto. And what did I just tell you about self-auditing? It gives no tone arm action. So the degree that the pc hasn’t any communication cycle with the auditor, he doesn’t get tone arm action. So then the degree that the pc is sitting there all by himself, self-auditing, gives you no tone arm action. And that’s actually—the absence of tone arm action is the degree of self-audit the pc is indulging in. You understand this cycle?
All right, well, that’s all there is to that cycle. That’s all there is to that cycle. Now, for heaven’s sakes, get yours sufficiently well repaired that you don’t have to worry about it after training. And after that, spend your basic auditing doing nothing but repair the communication inabilities of the pc, and you will be a genius, man! You crack 99 percent of the cases that walk in. A screaming genius! People will look at you, “Wow!” you know? Well, this fellow is awful worried because his wife’s waffling and ran off with a “waff-waf, and so forth, waf-waf-waf-waf-waf-waf-waf. . .” and you say “Thank you,” and he goes “ Waf-waf-waf. . . “Thank you.” “. . . waf-waf-waf-waf. . .” “thank you! Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I heard . . . I heard about your wife running off with the chauffeur. Tha . . . thank you. I got that. I . . . I—r got that! I heard it. Yeah, yeah. Good! Thank you! All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks. All right.”

Guy will be looking at you like a snake that has just been faced with a shotgun, see? “What has entered into my perimeter? Is there something else around here? I could have sworn I heard somebody speak.”

A lot of you take over the case, and the guy is going, “yip-yip-yap-yap-yap.” And he says, “waffle, waffle, waf and so forth and so on, and so on and I really don’t have any and so on and all these lollipops, they keep coming out of the wah-blah-blah . . .”

You say, “Thank you.”

And he goes, “Wa-wa-wana-nawa-wa . . .”

You say, “Thank you.”

And “ Wa-wa. And then the—all the lollipops and the wife ran away with the chauffeur, and so on. And it’s all very terrible . . .”

And you say, “Thank you,” and so forth.

“And it’s all very terrible and the wife ran away with the lollipops and, oh, the chauffeur came out, and . . .”

Oh, don’t be an idiot and sit there and let this go on forever. He isn’t talking to anybody. Now, that’s what you’ve got to recognize. Let’s get down to some of these problems here. Let’s get down. What is this guy doing with his communication cycle? You want to know how to bust cases, that’s how you bust them.

What’s he doing? I’ll give you an idea. Let me give you a very, very high-school, way-upstairs analysis of this situation, show you how far this can go—way up in the clouds. Bang! Pc takes twenty minutes to answer the auditing question. Now, the auditor, see, in this particular case, he knows Scientology. He knows it backwards, forwards and upside down, see? Guy takes twenty minutes to answer the auditing question, and in that answer of the auditing question, doesn’t answer it. Now, the very smart auditor, the very, very, very smart auditor, in repairing this communication cycle from the pc, would look at that, and he’d have three processes just like that. Three processes he’d know he’d have to do on this pc. Pang, pang, pang! This, I told you is very high school, see? It’s very up. Very upstairs.

(1) Pc cannot have an auditing question. It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? Didn’t answer the question, so he couldn’t have gotten it. So your first process would be “What auditing question wouldn’t you mind being asked?” or “What auditing question should you be asked?” or “What question could you answer?” This is getting very elementary, isn’t it? “What question wouldn’t you mind answering?” You say that’s running him at effect. No, it isn’t, because you’re asking him to have the power of choice over what question. You’d be surprised. You could probably run that as a repetitive process for an hour or two, and everything would get much brighter to this person. Person would say, “Terrific process! Absolutely terrific process. Never heard of such a process before! When did you dream that process up?” I mean, dream a process up, be damned. You just start processing him on a part of the communication cycle.

Now let’s get more esoteric. Let’s get much more esoteric. If he says he hasn’t had any auditing, we obviously would adjudicate that he can’t have any auditing. But we’d have to repair something of the communication cycle of “What question wouldn’t he mind answering?” before we could ask him a question that he would answer. Quite obvious, isn’t it? So you’d have to take first things first. And then we would have to find out about this auditing thing, and I think you’d find out, as your second process, it’d be necessary for you to get him to get the concept of wasting auditing, and others wasting auditing. Well, if he can’t have it, he’s wasting it, because it’s sitting in front of him. Can’t have auditing.

Well, if you got him to waste it in concept for a few minutes or a half an hour or a session or something like this, “Get the idea of you wasting auditing. Get the idea of someone . . .”—not have him pick up anything on recall, man, because if you’re auditing a case like that, you’re obviously auditing somebody who doesn’t dare go back on the backtrack. So don’t say “What auditing have you had that you wouldn’t mind?” you see, because you’re asking him to go into the past. Well, obviously, that is like going out into the outer perimeter. The past is not in the session. That’s going abroad, isn’t it? Memory processes, and that sort of thing, are out of the session and out of the communication cycle. That’s something you repair after you’ve got somebody in session.

So your next process would be, as I said, waste auditing. “Get the idea of wasting auditing. What could you do here that would waste auditing?” That’s very good, you see? “What could an auditor do here that would waste auditing?” Because a person can’t have something, they must waste ii. If he isn’t getting auditing, he must not be able to have it. I mean, let’s get elementary. Let’s go way back to 1952, get Elementary Have. The ability to do. You could also get him to waste communication or anything else, but I’m just dreaming up three processes in a row here. Your first one is what question could he answer, see, wouldn’t he mind answering; your next one is “Get the idea of wasting auditing”; and the third one, “Who would I have to be to audit you?”

Now you’ve done a subvert, here. You’ve gone below the session. See, you’ve brought him up to a point where he could hear the fact that you’re going to ask him a very significant question. After I did that, I’d maybe work on his memory. Because those three points would really be healed. You’d see that whole case change. You’d see that whole case change. And yet you’re worried because he keeps talking about his lollipops running out with—away with his wife, or something of the sort. And you just get fixated on the fact. You say, “This guy can’t be audited because he talks all the time, all the time, all the time, about lollipops and the chauffeur, and it goes on and on and on and on and on. And, therefore, if we don’t remedy this button about the lollipops, the chau . . .” Why, hell’s bells, he doesn’t even know what he’s talking about.

It’s whether or not he can receive an acknowledgment, whether or not he can receive an auditing question, whether or not he can have an auditing session, whether or not he can sit in an auditing room, whether or not he can have an acknowledgment, whether or not, you see, he can say something to the auditor, whether or not—so forth. You get all the little processes that go with this, see? Now, the person took twenty minutes to answer an auditing question and didn’t answer it for those twenty minutes. Three processes. Based on what? Just your knowledge of Scientology and what the pc is doing in front of you. Simple, huh?

All right, we got a pc who’s sitting there, and he doesn’t say anything. Let’s take another case, let’s just do all this off the cuff. Pc isn’t saying anything.

“Yeah.”

“All right. Do birds fly?” (You’re running some process, you know?) “Do birds fly? I’ll repeat the question....”
“Oh, hmm. Oh, hmm. (sigh) Yeah.”

Well, let’s dream up a process. We obviously can’t have “What question wouldn’t you mind my asking you?” because he’s sitting there silent, man. Probably not a question of being asked a question, it’s a question of not being able to respond to a question. Let’s take it apart, let’s find out what the pc is doing, dream up something accordingly, see?

So we say, “What could you say to me?” Elementary. Long comm lag, and he finally says something he can say to you. You get this question over somehow to him. What could he say to you?

And he finally says, “I . . . I could say hello.” Good, big win, see? All right, let’s build this up on a gradient. Next thing you know, you’ve got him talking to you. But you see, if you don’t have the auditing cycle going from the pc to the auditor, if you have tremendous communication disabilities on the part of the pc, you actually don’t have any auditing cycle going that will discharge energy, and so you don’t have tone arm action. That simple? That’s all there is to it, actually. So, as soon as he can talk to the auditor, don’t get so overjoyed about this wonderful change in him that you cease, now, to inspect his communication cycle. Because if you’ve cured that, you will now find another piece of it that’s missing. In other words, you can go the whole way. Do you see?

After he’s gotten so that he can say something to you, well now, now you might have to figure out what would he answer, don’t you see? And now you might have to figure out if he could have an auditor. Now you might even go so far as to find out what constituted getting better. I don’t think you have to invent a process as complicated as “What would be worse than getting better?” But what the pc isn’t doing is where . . . Well, let me put it this way. There’s a little formula involved: It’s what the pc isn’t doing that it might be possible for the auditor to get him to do, see? That’s the formula. It isn’t what isn’t the pc doing that we’re going to get him to do—what is the missing ability? Because obviously he’s not OT, so you say, “All right, be OT.” You’re going to have a lose here. I’m afraid that’s going to be a lose. Do you see? So, it’s what can you get the pc to do that the pc can regain the ability in doing? See, that’s the formula on which you’re operating.

And, operating on that formula, you can find all sorts of things. You can thresh around in the environment of the pc, one way or the other, and if you’re an alert auditor, you’ll see these little disabilities showing up here and there, and so forth. A stammerer is about the easiest diagnosis anybody ever had anything to do with. But how many stammerers have I seen being audited on processes and techniques? Well, it’s absolutely foolish to audit a stammerer on a technique. He obviously is having difficulty communicating. What are you doing in an auditing session, doing anything but to improve his ability to communicate to the auditor?

Now, you might find something silly like this happen if you were auditing somebody who stammered: that he would talk to the auditor eventually with complete clarity—still stammered to other people. Well, this is quite obvious. This is extremely obvious what you would now do. You don’t now instantly extend it to other people, because there are other pieces of the communication abilities right there in the session to be straightened up before you go out into the outer perimeter of the society. And usually where the auditor gets his lose is he repairs something, gets a big win, and then there’s thirty other things to be repaired, sitting right in front of his face—right in front of him—and he doesn’t. He does some kind of a jump into memory, or engram running, or something. My God, just because the pc is now perfectly willing to talk to you is no reason that the pc—who a few minutes ago could not remember anything —it’s no reason he now can remember something. That’s another ability.

Let’s say somebody is trying to improve their memory. Well, you improve somebody’s memory after you’ve got somebody who can receive an auditing question and answer it, and then receive the acknowledgment resulting therefrom, and who can sit there in an auditing session and be a pc and be audited. Now you can go about improving memory, but oddly enough, memory improvement starts with being able to remember something in the auditing room, not something that happened to him eight trillion years ago. It begins just a minute ago.

I’ve seen a pc absolutely ruined, become unauditable, by repetitively being asked questions having to do with memory that the pc couldn’t answer. So another rule in observing the communication cycle, and so forth, is don’t ask the pc to do things the pc can’t do. And if you’ve inadvertently asked the pc to do something the pc now can’t do, well, for heaven’s sakes, be enough on the ball, be sharp enough, be really bright on this and recognize that you’ve asked the pc something the pc can’t do, and therefore you’ve given a lose, and you better not compound the lose. Don’t ask them to do the same thing again that they now can’t do.

This goes very elementary. You talk about flattening processes. Very often you’re asking a pc a process, you see? “From where could you view catfish?” see? “From where could you view catfish?” “From where could you view catfish?”

And the pc finally says, “That’s all the answers there are.”

And you know, the process had better be flattened. So you say, “Well, from where could you view catfish?”

And he says, “Well, that’s all the answers there are.”

And you say, “From where could you view catfish?” And now he has to invent an answer, and you’re running a create process. Your pc, if he doesn’t ARC break, snarls up right there.

I always respect a pc saying “There aren’t any more answers.” I bail out of there in a hurry. And when I ask the pc “From where could you view catfish?’ and we just took off into the blue here—”From where could you view catfish?” See? That’s the question I want you to answer now. Answer the question”—and the pc says, “I’m sorry, I . . . I never viewed any catfish,” I know right away have been guilty of giving the pc an auditing question which the pc couldn’t answer, and I am guilty of not having cleared the auditing question. I’ve gives the pc a lose.

Let’s have a pc who is very deathly afraid of touching mantels—mantel pieces. Just invent a nuttiness, see? All right, we’ll say! “All right, walk over there and touch that mantelpiece.” (We already knew he was this way, see or we don’t know he’s this way.) We say, “Walk over there and touch the mantelpiece.”

And he says, “Uughh, I . . . I . . . I can’t do that.”

Soon as you’ve gotten into that situation, you got yourself a lose. Let find out if the pc could do these things. Let’s discuss this process a little bit with the pc. Like, “How’s about . . .” I don’t care how grammatical or esoteric or patterned you are about this, you see, because sometimes you have to b very communicative. And you say, “How’s about if I ask you to walk around here and touch parts of this room? What would you think about that? What if I ask you to do something like that?”

And the pc says, “Oh, my God, I couldn’t do that! Ho-ho-ho-ho, no oh-oh! Particularly a mantelpi — Oh-oh-oh, no! Don’t ask me to do anything like that.”

You say, “All right, I won’t.”

See, swift recovery. Now, you haven’t given the pc any lose. In fact you might have given him a little win. This caused him a spooky feeling “You know, I’m really—I don’t really want to walk around here and tour the room.”

Ah, he’s interested now. “Well, is there anything around here you wouldn’t be too upset about touching? How’s that? How about some question like that’
“Oh, I could . . . I wouldn’t be too scared of touching that . . . that spot on the floor.”

“What else wouldn’t you mind looking around here and . . . ?”

Smooth as glass, you see? See? You cleared it, he said he couldn’t do this intrigued him, now you can hit a gradient that he can do and build it back up, and you’ve got it made.

Every once in a while you see something like this. But if you’re not observing what the communication cycle of the pc is, why, you’re adrift all the time. Pc isn’t answering the question. Well, that’s obvious. Maybe there’s a hundred thousand remedies could be dreamed up for this particular activity, all within the perimeter of the auditing room. Pc is this way, pc is that way, pc... Every time they sit down in the chair they dust the chair off very carefully and take some Kleenex and wipe the arms of the chair, and then they sit down very gingerly into the chair. You’ve observed this a couple of times. Well, there’s no point in bringing it sharply to their attention, but you must realize, it must be borne home to you—with that much exaggeration, certainly it’d bring it home—that this pc doesn’t want to touch very much around an auditing session. I mean, that would be an elementary observation, don’t you see?

It might have to do with chairs, it might be a GPM, but you can’t run all of that. Let’s just chalk this up. Let’s chalk this up. Pc gingery on this subject. Obviously, somewhere up the line you’re going to run some objective process on this pc—somewhere up the line. But ahead of that there might be some much more attainable, but much less obvious thing, such as the pc never looks at the auditor. That might be touchable. “If you looked over here, what would you see?” Doesn’t really require him to look over there. He only need guess at it. “What might you see?” You could even soften it up to that, don’t you see?

There’s all kinds of things here that depend on auditor observation. Where the pc breaks down in his communication cycle with the auditor and where the pc breaks down in his communication cycle with the environment is your entrance point to the case. Those are the entrance points to the case. If you haven’t got him squared around so that he can respond to the auditor, he of course can’t answer any auditing question, so what’s this technique worry? Why are you worried about a technique? No technique you ever dreamed up is going to arrive.

Well, you have some fortuitous feeling that an automaticity will turn on in the pc and answer you. Well, that’s how you’re going to get the pc getting well and never finding out about it. They ran into that in Dianetics. They could actually run ‘em through an engram. The engram was so easy to trigger, and the bank responds to the auditor so beautifully, that practically the whole session could be carried on without the presence or benefit of a pc. Pc didn’t have to enter into it—and case loses occurred resultingly.

But these are the ways you crack cases. And the best way to study it is just walk around it and take a look at all possible ramifications that could be done about it, get some acquaintance with processes from ‘52, ‘53, ‘55, wonder which one of these processes are applicable to what, don’t you see? There’s all kinds of these processes. First Saint Hill, “Who would I have to be to audit you?” see? That’s a nice process, see? But there’s tons of these processes you can . . . Oh, Lord! Well, they’re being cataloged now, lots of them. But they’re honeys. They’re honeys.

Sometimes you find a pc can’t, absolutely cannot run some process because one leg of it is wrong. Let’s say SCS, and yet the pc can’t stand still. And it’s required in the process to stand still, and yet you’re running Start, Change and Stop on the pc.

Well, the pc’s disability is the pc can’t stand still. The pc can start, the pc can change and the pc can stop, as long as they don’t have to stop much. So you say, well, we can flatten stop—this will be all right. Oh, no, there must be a leg underlying this. See, a pc disability—the pc cannot stand still.

Well, what would you do about something like this? Well, I’ll tell you what not to do about it: neglect it. Don’t keep on running SCS, SCS, SCS, and the pc is going on, and they go on, because what are they doing? They’re running with a prior consideration of the process. Therefore, they never really take on any of the auditing commands.
 
They are running each auditing command, (“When I say ‘Start,’ you start that body” and so forth), “All right, I just—that . . . that’ll give me a chance not to stand still,” see? The pc always amends it. Always amends the auditing question, always amends the auditing question. Don’t you see? “I’ll stop it, but I’ll stop it quick enough and get off of it so at no point during the stop have I stood still.” See? You get this idea? Well, a little discussion with the pc will show up these various things.

Now, you can take a process and you can walk parallel with SCS, and you can repair that point and run SCS afterwards. Well, how would you go about standing still? Well, the crudest way to go about it is just say “Stand still. All right.” “Don’t stand still. Thank you.” “Stand still. Thank you.” “Don’t stand still. Thank you.” That’s the crudest thing I know of, see? This is obviously right out of the textbooks and technology of Scientology, you see? “Stand still. Thank you.” “Don’t stand still. Thank you.” “Stand still. Thank you.” “Don’t stand. . .” Automaticity is going to go away; this must be some kind of an automaticity that’s all ready to trigger there. So if we get the person into any familiarity with it—because the person already realizes they can’t do it. That recognition tells you that it’s within the range of itsa.

But if you get somebody walking in on crutches that don’t know they’re walking on crutches, you wouldn’t say “Throw away your crutches. Now walk.” See, too high a gradient. And they don’t even worry about it. You get somebody walking in and saying, “I got to get rid of these crutches, man”—worry, worry, worry, present time problem, see?

Well, the thing to do is inspect their communication cycle and their communication cycle with the auditor, communication cycle with their mind, the communication cycle with the environment—see, there’s many of these little communication cycles—let’s inspect these various things. Let’s find out he’s all right before we say “All right. Throw away your crutches. Thank you.” You got the idea? See?

Normally, what the person is worried about is in actual fact not what the person is bugged with. You very often will get somebody running off on a total automaticity of what’s wrong with them, and they’re not even listening to themself talk. Actually, they will run off a total automaticity of what’s wrong with them, and they’re not even listening to themselves talk. Sometimes they listen to themselves talk to find out what’s wrong with them. When you get into that situation, why, it’s elementary to repair the existing livingness of the pc, but only after you’ve repaired their auditingness.

An auditing session is a highly artificial action. Highly artificial. It’s dreamed up, invented from scratch. Nothing like it has really ever existed before. That’s why a psychoanalyst would lay an egg a minute—in a minute— if he cracked a textbook on Scientology and took it back to the office to run it on one of his patients. Aughhh! And boy, do they lay eggs! Why? Well, they’re running Scientology with a psychoanalytic auditing cycle. And, of course, that’s a wild auditing cycle if you’ve ever inspected it.

One psychoanalyst said, “I don’t see how you can stand to listen hour after hour after hour,” and the other one says, “Who listens?” But that’s their appreciation of the auditing cycle, and it’s too bad to produce any great effect, which is probably fortunate—because the theory which goes back of it, and so forth, is highly artificial. They don’t produce any impingement, the auditing cycle isn’t there, and so on.

But this artificiality of an auditing session approximates—it’s only artificial because it approximates in such harsh, staggering, visible reality, the exact precise points of contact with existence. And what it is, is a hopped-up, gunned-up contact with beings in existence, don’t you see? Way up! It’s something like putting [taking] a Model-T Ford and putting a Lycoming  aircraft engine in it, see? And bzzzz-zzzz!

Well, all of communication always has consisted of cause, distance, effect. Well, you jam it up into an auditing communication cycle and it’s full of bombs, man. See, bang! Things are going to happen, because it’s highlighted the exact important points. For instance, you ask somebody on the street out here, “What’s important about communication?”

They say, “Well, being polite.”

“Good. What are the parts of communication?”

“Oh, there’s uh . . . past participles and there’s uh . . . present participles and uh . . . there’s grammar and . . .”

See, they couldn’t tell you any of this, don’t you see?

All right, you gun in there, with cause, distance, effect, you see? Ask a question, get it answered, acknowledge it, see? Porowww! See? Wrooof! You’re handling raw meat. And you rehabilitate any part of this, and so forth, and then something wakes up. Thetan can’t help but wake up. The ability to communicate is always terribly visible to a reporter, or somebody doing work in this particular field. They get around Scientologists, it knocks them flat. And this photographer that was here today from the Saturday Evening Post, and so forth—who has gone now, I imagine—this boy’s first remark to me is “They’re all so uninhibited!” after he got through taking pictures of you, you see? “You’re all so uninhibited.”

He sees communication happening. He’s very impressed with you, you see? You’re walking straighter, and you aren’t all tightened up, and you’re not a bundle of nerves, don’t you see, and all this sort of thing. And he can’t quite express this thing, but he’s already in a state of shock because he’s been hit, you see, with too much life, livingness, you know—just hit him in the face. And yet, none of you really probably said anything to him. It’s that apparent.

Well now, you take this up and gun this up into an auditing cycle, and the auditor is saying, “Do birds fly?” and the pc is supposed to listen to this, and he is supposed to understand this and he is supposed to sort out the answer to this, and he is supposed to deliver it up now. And he’s going to get for that, “Thank you” straight into his skull. And it isn’t the parts of grammar, and it isn’t this, and it isn’t that and it isn’t the other thing, and . . . If he can stand up to this, he’ll start getting the idea that he can communicate. And he goes out of session, and he’ll start communicating with the environment. And the only thing really wrong with people is, is they’ve withdrawn from contact.

If you wanted to capsulize the entirety of difficulty with the mind, take somebody who is no longer looking. The last time he looked, there were three saber-toothed tigers ready to bite him. Now he is no longer looking. of course, he believes that there are three saber-toothed tigers there. He’ll sometimes put up screens between himself and the tigers. And then, of course, he never dares take down the screens, so he never finds out if the tigers have gone. And he does this throughout enough trillenia, he’s got an awful stack of tigers—all of which have left! But he doesn’t know it. He can’t be sure they’ve left.
And so he’s in a condition of total withdrawal—from his environment, from himself. He’s safeguarded himself with an automatic bank; he’s safeguarded himself with an automatic beingness; he’s got a valence standing where he ought to be, and he knows that he came straight from mud and that he is mud and that he’d better not be anything else, because mud is relatively unpalatable when eaten by saber-toothed tigers.

And a capsulization of all aberration is just a total withdrawal. I don’t care—that’s a psychiatric term, of course. They have some condition; they say “total withdrawal.” The psychiatrist is standing there totally withdrawn, telling you about somebody who has gone into a withdrawal, which I always considered very interesting. This is not an apt term. It’s one point where we’re crossing terms. But we’re not talking about the psychiatric withdrawal, we’re just talking about the fact the guy has retreated, that’s all. He no longer dares put out a beam a mile away. First he could put one out a light-year, then he put one out a year, you see, and then he put one out a hundred yards, and—pardon me, a mile. And then he got down to a hundred yards. And each time he got enough “being bitten,” don’t you see, that he no longer puts out to distance, his remedy is always shorten the reach. And the thetan has, as his standard remedy for safety, shorten the reach. And what does he do when he gets into zero reach?

He actually can figure out how to invert a withdrawal into an inverted withdrawal, and you get the cycle of the dynamics coming on down, which is—he comes away from actual reach, don’t you see, and he comes down to zero actual reach. Well, he’s got to reach somehow, so he figures some other way to reach, don’t you see? He reads travel books or something, you know? And he goes into these various cycles. And there’s always a zero of what he is doing, which then has a remedy which is lower than that, and he gets down into not just a total withdraw, he gets down to an inversion of the inversion of the inversion of the inversion withdrawal. of course, the first point this shows up is in an auditing session, and his ability to talk to the auditor—about pertinencies.

The sensibility of his communication is also in point here. You’ve asked him, “Do you have a car?” And he has explained to you that General Motors stock has gone down for the last year or so, and drops it at this point. So pertinencies—he didn’t answer the question, did he? So you get him into some condition where he can answer the question, he can speak up, where he can hear what you’re saying, where he can therefore receive the auditor. Because you’ve got somebody on total withdrawal, one of your best remedies is to see that he gets reached, don’t you see? And you reach him in order to get him to reach, don’t you see? And these are the conditions which you’re trying to remedy with an auditing cycle.

Now, if you want to be an absolute gee-whizzer to end all gee-whizzers on cracking cases, don’t you ever go around drooling about this fellow sitting there, and he’s saying, “And my wife lollipopped with the chauffeur, and . . . and it’s just all too tough, so on and so forth, and so on and so on.”

And you’re trying to say to him, “This is—you know, the session has ended.”

And he says, “ . . . and so and so on and came down the chute, and there were eight sides of it, and so forth; they were all hexagonal, you see, and so forth.”

And you said, “The . . . the session—the session ended some time ago.”

And he says, “ . . . and so on and so on. So I’ve always said to chauffeurs since that particular time, I’ve said it lollipopped the chauffeur!”

Don’t now go to somebody, or try to crack a textbook to find out what technique to run on this case. It isn’t a case of technique. He hasn’t got anybody there to talk to. He isn’t talking to anybody. If he is, it’s somebody else. He isn’t talking about a problem he could have, see? He isn’t even talking about a problem he’s got! He probably isn’t even listening to himself anymore. He has no familiarity with the environment, he is disoriented as to where he is and so forth. And you want a technique?

He’s got a paw. Well, you could say, “Now pick up your hand and put it on the side of the chair and feel the side of the chair.”

He might go right on talking for some time without noticing you’re doing this. Then eventually say, “Hey, there’s a chair here.” Big win.

But if you’re going to deal in pcs at all who have disabilities of any kind whatsoever, you’ve got to have a session before you can have Class IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X. You get the idea nose? You’ve got to have A session before you can have a technique operating. This is the value of the auditing cycle, this is its use, and this is how to become one of the wildest. case crackers anybody ever had anything to do with. You get to be a screaming genius on this subject, and something.

Oh, you make errors, you’ll get too accusative, you’ll all of a sudden find you overcut—you’ve overestimated the pc’s ability here and there, and so forth, and you have to cut it back. But remember that it always requires adjustment.

The only other thing I would teach you, and like to teach you about this, and I really wish I could, is that after you’ve remedied it, it’s been remedied. And don’t keep on; because this pc had a lot of tone arm action on what question he could receive from the auditor, and so forth, don’t make that a lifetime profession. Because this is just another method of non-observation. Now that he can do this and is doing it, note that he is doing it. See? He feels all right about it and he is doing it. Note that, and now notice—notice, in other words, that he’s changed—and then notice what else you can put together.

So there’s two more things to notice, don’t you see? Is when has that condition been remedied?—when has that little ability been regained?—so that you can pull foot out of there. And the other thing is observe now, newly and freshly, for something else to do for the pc.

The reason I give you those other two is that sometimes it happens so rapidly that you’re just rocked back on your heels. Pc has never talked to anybody before in their life, and you all of a sudden have them talking to you pertinently, in a blue streak. Well, let’s not go on remedying their ability to talk to the auditor See, ability regained. So you want to be able to notice that, and that’s all part of the observation.

And the real hot—the real hot auditor, the real guy that gets case wins all over the place, is sitting in there observing what is going on in the session, and if things are going all right, doesn’t remedy them, and if things are going all wrong, picks up that point that can be remedied and remedies it, until they are all remedied, and then carries on. Those are the magic ways to go about this sort of thing.

Well, you take over the technical aspect of some Scientology organization. You’re sitting in there doing nothing but coaching up cases, doing nothing but coaching up cases. Don’t pay any attention to the auditing of the cases— consider that’s sincere and it’s being done as best it possibly can be. Ignore that aspect. Don’t keep picking on the auditors; that’s a training job. But just keeping watching—watching those communication cycles. Note the communication abilities and so forth, the appearance and that sort of thing, of a pc. Don’t depend on large tests having been made every fifteen minutes and fourteen pounds of auditor reports to tell you whether or not the pc’s had a change. Let’s look at this pc. Let’s listen to this pc in session. Is this pc talking better, answering more pertinently, and so forth? If so, fine! We’re winning, and 80 forth. Let’s not worry about that pc until we get a bog, and there’s a no-change condition begins to take place with that pc. And the pc looking brighter and got more spark in the eye than they had: Well, their eye was— remember that this is a gradient—their eye was absolutely complete pebble, stone, flat, lightless. And now you can see a trace of color through the fog. That’s an improvement. See? Note the improvements. Don’t just be cynical about it the whole way, you see? Note the improvements, because they sometimes take place rather slowly.

And just keep them moving up, and only pay attention to—only pay attention to—the communication cycle and the ability of the person to handle the environment in his immediate vicinity, particularly an auditing session. And only pay attention to those things.
 
Never pay any attention to the person’s problems, never pay any attention to their goals in session, never pay attention to any of these other things —because obviously, any auditor they got would take care of these things if the pc was in session.

See? Auditors are good at that. What they’re not good at is having somebody there fully in session. Because, of course, that’s the hardest trick. That’s the roughest trick. But there lie the biggest gains. And it looks so easy, looks so kindergartenish, that you very often neglect it.

So you see that somebody is all straightened out, he can talk to an auditor, an auditor can talk to him, that an auditing cycle can take place, the person can receive an acknowledgment, the person can have an auditing room, the person can have an auditing session—all of these things are possible everything is fine, and so forth: Well, aside from occasionally catching somebody with a tremendous goof on the subject of—they’re running the service facsimile on the person, and when it got [to] a service facsimile, the auditor in this particular case couldn’t find any service facsimile because the person had been raised in a poor family and didn’t have any maids.

Then the thing to do is to get hold of the D of T and say, “That auditor needs some training on service facsimiles.” Not to go into it. But the only trouble you’re going to run into from there on, don’t you see, is going to be the application of technique.

And that is never the trouble in Scientology, and it is not the trouble, it is not the trouble with your pc that you’re having any trouble with at all. The techniques work like mad, but all of them have the dependency of the pc fully in session. The pc is fully in session, you can run almost anything on them a they’ll sail, don’t you see? Pc not in session, won’t. The big bog is people do not get the pc into session before they start running something. And therefore they expect a technique will remedy something that’s sitting right in front of their faces, which is the pc is not at all in session. Do you see?

All right. That’s actually how to undercut cases left, right and cent make a wide swath in all directions. And I think you can do it.

Thank you.

CHAPTER XII

THE SIX BASIC PROCESSES

Exerpt from the Book: Dianetics 55!

Today’s auditor must be conversant with six Basic Processes and must be able to get results with these processes before he can expect to get results with higher levels of auditing.

These six processes form a roadway for more than the auditor. We discover that they compose a tone-scale. This tone-scale is as follows: at its lowest and highest reaches, whether by mimicry, words, or mock-up, we have two-way communication. Next above this, occupying a position from about 1.1 to 1.8 on the Chart of Human Evaluation as given in “Science of Survival,” we have Elementary Straightwire. Above this we have, from 1.8 to 2.5, Opening Procedure. Above this, from 2.6 to 3.0, we have Opening Procedure by Duplication. Above this we have Remedy of Havingness, from 3.1 to 3.5, and above this, from 3.6 to 4.0, Spotting Spots in Space.

An auditor, in auditing these six basic processes, becomes sufficiently capable in observing and communicating that he can handle (or, can bring the preclear up to the point where he can handle) the “subjective process” which remedies communication, or the other one which is the “One-Shot Clear.”

The problem of psychosis never rightly belonged in Dianetics but it has been solved there. Opening Procedure of 8-C and the Mimicry techniques as given in the PABs resolve psychosis. They resolve it rapidly and care for it adequately, and we have no real worry on that score. The only reason we would enter the field of psychosis at all would be to find out how far South our techniques worked.

CHART OF PROCESSES

WHERE THEY ARE ON THE ARC TONE SCALE

			Exteriorized

                                     					4.0
               		Spotting Spots in Space
								3.6

								3.5
               		Remedy of Havingness
								3.1

								3.0
               		Op. Pro. by Duplication
								2.6

								2.5
               		Opening Procedure 8-C
								1.8

								1.8
               		Elementary Straightwire
								1.1
								
								1.0			
               		Two-Way Communication
								-8.0

As covered much more fully in “The Creation of Human Ability,” available from the Hubbard Scientology Organization, these Six Basic Processes form the background to all processes. Through them we find two-way communication everywhere. It can be said with honesty that there is no auditing without two-way communication.

The process, Two-way Communication itself, could be subdivided into verbal and non-verbal processes. The verbal processes would include questions about the present time environment and the preclear’s life, interests, and so forth, and would get a direct answer to every question, no matter how long the communication lag was. In other words, a two-way communication would be entered upon so as to actually bring the preclear to talk to the auditor. In the case of people who have great difficulties in this line, we have non-verbal techniques such as Mimicry, wherein the auditor mimics the preclear and persuades the preclear to mimic the auditor. Various processes are used, such as passing a ball back and forth between them, nodding, shaking hands, sitting down, standing up, walking across the room and back and sitting down, all of which are effective.

Much of this book, “Dianetics 55!” is on the subject of two-way communication, and the totality of auditing is bringing a preclear into excellent two-way communication, and it is conceived a little difficult by instructors to relay the “process” called Two-way Communication. However, it is actually simplicity itself, for all that is necessary is to get the preclear to actually volunteer communication and answer the communications volunteered to him. There is always something the preclear will talk about.

Mimicry, particularly when used on psychotics, is a precision subject. Mimicry is not a new process, it is almost as old as psycho-therapy, but it is spotty when used without an intimate knowledge of validation. It can be said that that which one validates comes true. The only force or strength Life has is that which derives directly from the upper echelon of Understanding. When Life gets down to a point where it is incomprehensible it cannot relay any understanding.Understanding this is essential for an auditor. He must realize that he gives power to everything he validates. We made some thing important out of the engram, and by validating engrams, we actually, where they were audited poorly, gave force and power to engrams. Thus it is with the psychotic. To mimic the strange, peculiar, bizarre and unusual things he does is to give force and strength to those things. It cannot be said with sufficient emphasis that the auditor must never mimic the strange, bizarre and unusual manifestations of the psychotic. The only way that the auditor can make mimicry work consistently and continually and rapidly, is by validating what the environment considers the agreed-upon, the usual, the routine, the ordinary. Perhaps the psychotic is twisting his hands madly, and occasionally nodding slightly. The auditor, to mimic him, would not twist his hands, but would nod slightly, since a nod is the agreed-upon manifestation in the environment, not the twisting of hands. If the auditor does this, the preclear will begin to nod more and twist his hands less. If the auditor were to begin to mimic the psychotic by twisting hands, he would discover that the psychotic would probably stop twisting his hands, but would do something else more bizarre. And if the auditor mimics this much more bizarre thing, the psychotic will simply go on to something even wilder or might become entirely motionless, for the one fear the psychotic has is becoming predictable. The psychotic is under the control of entities, demon-circuits. He does have a grain of sanity present, otherwise he would not be able to function at all. Therefore, those things which he does which are sane must be mimicked and so reinforced. If an auditor knows this thoroughly and practices it smartly he will discover that psychotics can be brought into two-way communication and moved immediately into Opening Procedure of 8-C, the proper process for psychotics. 8-C, while not a psychotic process, does work on psychotics. However, in working Opening Procedure of 8-C on the psychotic, the auditor must be very careful not to go beyond part “a” for a long, long time.

From the process known as “Two-way Communication” we move on to the process known as “Elementary Straightwire.” Elementary Straightwire has two basic commands. One of these commands is used continually, over, and over, and over, and over, until the communication lag is entirely flat on it and then the other command is used over, and over, and over until the communication lag is entirely flat, at which time it will be discovered that the first command will now give communication lag. And so it is used over, and over, and over, and then the second one is used over, and over, and over. In other words, what we do here is to use this process of Elementary Straightwire with just two commands, continually, one command at a time, flattening each communication lag encountered. While one is doing this, of course, one maintains two-way communication. He acknowledges the fact that the preclear has recalled something and is in general alert to receive from the preclear an originated communication, answer it, and give further orders. The two commands of Elementary Straightwire are: “Give me something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” “Give me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” This can be varied with: “Tell me something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” “Tell me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” This Elementary Straightwire is a standard form. If it is varied it should be varied towards simplicity. A simple form of straightwire is “Remember something,” over and over, again, and again, and again, and again, and again. Do not use, however, “Forget something,” since this is far too rough for the preclear. Another even simpler form is to apply “Remember something” to the Dynamics, such as “Remember a man,” “Remember a group.” The only error that can be made in Elementary Straightwire is to get too fancy, for one does not believe that an auditor who has advanced this far in auditing would make an error in communication. There is an entire gamut which we call “The next to the last list in Self-Analysis” published in the original edition of “Self-Analysis” which has many times been known to break a person from a neurotic to a sane state. This is: “Can you recall a time that is really real to you?” “Can you recall a time when you were communicating well to someone?” “Can you recall a time when someone was communicating well to you?” “Can you recall a time when you felt Affinity for someone?” “Can you recall a time when someone felt Affinity for you?” By keeping this in the Understanding or Affinity line a case advances more rapidly than if mis-emotion and other factors are addressed.

Opening Procedure of 8-C is one of the most effective and powerful processes ever developed and should be recognized and used as such. The main error which is made in the Opening Procedure of 8-C is not to do it long enough. It takes about 15 hours of Opening Procedure of 8-C in order to bring a person into a completely relaxed and Self-Determined state of mind regarding orders. Opening Procedure of 8-C is a precision process. Step “a” of Opening Procedure of 8-C is “Do you see that object?” the auditor pointing. When the preclear signifies that he does, the auditor says, “Walk over to it.” When the preclear has walked over to it, the auditor says, “Touch it.” When the preclear does, the auditor says, “Let go,” and designates another object -- a wall, a lamp -- calls it by name or not, and goes through the same procedure once more. It is important that the auditor specifically acknowledge each time the preclear has executed the command given. When the preclear has seen the object, when he has walked over to it, when he has touched it, when he has let go -- each time the auditor signifies that he has perceived and does acknowledge this action on the part of the preclear. This Step “a” is used until the preclear does it easily, smoothly, without the slightest variation or introduction of any physical communication lag, and has demonstrated completely that he has no upset feeling about the auditor or objects in the room.

When “a” has been run for a length of time necessary to bring the case up tone, Part “b” is run. Part “b” introduces the idea of decision. It is notable that the “One-Shot Clear” must be very strong on this power of decision. It is also notable that a person in extremely bad condition has no power of decision. The commands of Part “b” are: “Pick a spot in this room,” and when the preclear has: “Walk over to it,” and when the preclear does: “Put your finger on it,” and when the preclear has: “Let go.” Each time, the auditor acknowledges the completion of the command by the preclear, signifying “All right,” “O.K.,” or “Fine,” making it very plain that he has noticed and approves of and is acknowledging the preclear in following each specific command. He approves of these one at a time in this fashion. The preclear is run on this until he demonstrates no physical communication lag of any kind in making up his mind what to touch, how to touch it, and so forth.

Part “c” of Opening Procedure of 8-C introduces further decision. It goes as follows: the auditor says, “Pick a spot in this room,” and when the preclear has, the auditor says “Walk over to it.” When the preclear does, the auditor says, “Make up your mind when you are going to place your finger on it, and do so.” When the preclear has, the auditor says, “Make up your mind when you are going to let go, and let go.” The auditor each time acknowledges the completion of one of these orders to the preclear. 

In doing Opening Procedure of 8-C the preclear must not be permitted to execute a command before it is given, and a two-way communication must be maintained. As I have said, Opening Procedure of 8-C is a very powerful process. If all auditors knew how to do this Opening Procedure of 8-C and could do this very well, we would right there have psycho-therapy licked. But we are not trying to lick psycho-therapy. It has never been a major problem to us. We are trying to bring people a long way further North than psycho-therapy ever dreamed of, and Dianetics and Scientology are not psycho-therapies, they are processes which increase the abilities of people.

Opening Procedure by Duplication has as its goal the separating of time, moment from moment. This is done by getting a preclear to duplicate the same action over and over again with two dissimilar objects. In England this process is called “Book and Bottle,” probably because these two familiar objects are the most used in doing Opening Procedure by Duplication.

The first step in Opening Procedure by Duplication is to familiarize the preclear with beth objects, as to their reality and his ability to own them. One makes himself handle them, and feel them, and acquaint himself with them, makes him describe them as objects he is experiencing in present time, not as something related into the past. A little time spent on this can be quite beneficial.

The auditor then begins what will become to the preclear before he is through with this some of the most hated phrases anyone could conceive, but which, by the time the preclear is finished with this, become just like any other phrases. Many people believe that opening Procedure by Duplication induces hypnosis. This is because in running it hypnotism runs off: the preclear, while the hypnotism is running off, may feel quite hypnotized. It is the exact reverse of hypnotism. Hypnotism is an effort to persuade the individual to do nothing, to sit still, and to accept fully the inflow. Opening Procedure by Duplication contains two-way communication, and indeed does not work unless two-way communication is done with it. The main liability in doing two-way communication on Opening Procedure by Duplication is that the auditor, in introducing two-way communication to it, may stray considerably from the pattern laid down. He must not do this. Although he is maintaining two-way communication he must adhere very sharply to the process. He can make the preclear tell more about them, he can make the preclear describe various things which are manifesting themselves to the preclear he can be insistent the preclear really knows he has just picked this up, but he must stay with this sequence of auditing commands, and may not vary from them even vaguely. He can interject other conversation, but not other auditing commands, into Opening Procedure by Duplication.

The auditing commands are: “Do you see that book?” says the auditor, pointing. When the preclear signifies that he has, the auditor says, “Walk over to it.” When the preclear does, the auditor says, “Pick it up.” When the preclear does, the auditor says, “Look at it.” When the preclear does (usually he was looking at it but now looks at it more closely) the auditor says, “Give me its color.” When the preclear does, the auditor says, “Give me its weight.” When the preclear does, the auditor says, “Give me its temperature.” When the preclear has, the auditor says, “Put it back exactly as you found it.” This action sequence having been completed, the auditor points to the bottle. “Do you see that bottle?” When the preclear does, the auditor says, “Walk over to it.” When the preclear does, the auditor says, “Pick it up.” When the preclear has, the auditor says, “Look at it.” When the preclear does, the auditor says, “Give me its color.” When the preclear has, the auditor says, “Give me its weight.” When the preclear has, the auditor says, “Give me its temperature.” When the preclear has, the auditor says, “Put it back exactly as you found it.” Then the auditor says, pointing out the book, “Do you see that book?” and so on, back and forth, using this exact sequence of commands. The auditor can interject “Describe it more fully.” The auditor can sometimes, but not oftener than once every 15 minutes, point to the book, have the preclear go through the full sequence with the book, and then point to the book again, and have the preclear once more go through the full sequence with the book. This will break down the automatic machinery a preclear is bound to set up to compensate for this process. We want to keep the preclear doing it, not his machines. By asking the preclear to describe the object, or describe its temperature more fully in its proper sequence in these commands, machines are also broken down and the alertness and the awareness of the preclear is increased.

The auditor must not omit letting the preclear give him the preclear’s reaction. The preclear will pause, seem to be confused. It is up to the auditor at that moment to say, “What happened?” and to find out what happened, and then to continue with the process, having acknowledged the communication of the preclear. An auditor must never be afraid to let a preclear emanate a communication, and an auditor must never fail to acknowledge the completion of an auditing action, no matter how minute.

The Remedy of Havingness is an extremely effective process for it remedies the ability of the preclear to have or not have at will. Sometimes auditors interpret this process as inflow, only. That is because the physical universe is an inflow universe, and it is all too easy for an auditor to assign to auditing and all other actions inflow characteristics only.

The modus operandi of the Remedy of Havingness is to have the preclear mock up something, pull it in, or mock up something and throw it away. It does not matter what you have him mock up. The item can have significance or not as the case may be. Preclears who are low in tone, if this is run on them, have a tendency to make everything they mock very significant. It is not the significance, it is the mass that counts. However, to keep the preclear interested, or to assist his mocking up, an auditor may designate specific things, and does so.

It will be found that the acceptance level and expectance level of the preclear very definitely monitor what he mocks up, and what he can pull in and what he can throw away. As covered in the Professional Auditor’s Bulletins, acceptance level processes can be combined with the Remedy of Havingness.

The commands of Remedy of Havingness are as follows: “Mock up a (planet, man, brick).” “Make a copy of it.” “Make a copy of it.” “Make a copy of it.” And when the preclear has from five to 15 copies, “Push them all together.” “Now pull them in on you.” When the preclear has done this for some time, the last command is varied by saying, “Throw them away and have them disappear in the distance.” In other words, we have the preclear mock up something, and when he has we have him make a copy of it, make another copy, and another copy, and another copy, one at a time, push them together and pull them in or throw them away. 

We keep up this process for some time until we are very certain that he can actually throw things away or pull them in on himself at will. This is the Remedy of Havingness. Remedy of Havingness does not mean stuffing the preclear with energy. It means remedying his ability to have or not have energy. Run with particular significances such as money, women, et cetera, one could remedy specific scarcities on the part of the preclear. But remember that at first they may be so scarce that at first he may have to waste a large quantity of them before he can have one.

On an awareness of awareness unit exteriorized we run Remedy of Havingness, but a little differently. We say, “Put up eight anchor points.” We describe to him how we want these put up. We want them put up in such a way as to form the corners of a cube. In other words, these eight anchor points are not put in a group in front of or behind the preclear, they are to be distributed around him. When the preclear has done this we say, “Pull them into you.” We keep this up for a long time. We also have the preclear exteriorized mock up eight anchor points and send them away from him. A preclear exteriorized can be very unhappy about his lack of havingness and this last process is used to remedy this upset.

Remedy of Havingness is an exteriorization technique. If it is run on an individual long enough, say eight or ten hours, he will probably exteriorize at the end of that time. If you kept on running it as an exteriorized process, given in the second part above, he would then have his visio clear up, and he would finally get into very excellent condition. This is quite a process. However, remember this process depends upon the preclear following the auditor’s orders. Unless the auditor has guaranteed this by Opening Procedure of 8-C and Opening Procedure by Duplication, the chances of the preclear’s actually following his orders (although pretending to do so) are very slim. We discovered in old-time Dianetics that the breakdown was in the preclear failing to follow the auditor’s orders. Preclears would pretend to follow an auditor’s orders but actually would not.

The process known as Spotting Spots in Space is not to be attempted on somebody who is having a difficult time, and when it is attempted it should be accompanied with Remedy of Havingness. One makes a person spot spots in space for a short time, then remedies Havingness, makes them spot spots in space, then remedies Havingness, then spot spots in space. These two processes, Remedying Havingness and Spot Spots in Space actually belong together, however the preclear eventually emerges up in a higher band where he can spot spots in space without remedying Havingness.

The auditing commands are: “Spot a spot in the space of this room.” When the preclear has, the auditor says, “Spot another spot,” etc. When the preclear gets well into the process in this fashion we say, “Spot a spot in the space of this room.” “Walk over to it,” and when he has, “Put your finger on it.” When he does, “Let go.”

The auditor should ask the preclear when he starts this process if the spot has any mass, color, temperature, or any other characteristics, or “How big is it?” The auditor asks this to make sure that the preclear is actually spotting a spot, a simple location, not a spot that has a mass, temperature, or characteristics. A location is simply a location, it does not have mass, it does not have color, it does not have any temperature. When we ask the preclear to spot a spot at first his spots are liable to have mass and temperature. We do not object to this, we simply ask him frequently, once we have discovered that his spots do have this, how his spots are getting along, and we remember, on such a preclear, that we must remedy havingness. Eventually he will move out to a point where he is simply spotting locations.

These are the Six Basic Processes that an auditor must know. They are all of them very powerful processes, and each and any one of them can accomplish the goals which were envisioned in “Dianetics:The Modern Science of Mental Health.” The essence of these processes is to do them as given, to do them “purely,” all the while maintaining a two-way communication with the preclear. Auditors get into minor variations on this set of processes, but these processes were evolved first in theory by myself, were developed in practice by myself, and were then given to many auditors to do, and many auditors were trained in them, and then these processes were refined and inspected until they represent a very broad agreement, and we have found that these commands, as you have them here, are the best commands which can be used in processing a preclear. The failure of an auditor to duplicate, his unwillingness to duplicate, his upset about duplication in general will quite often lead him up the blind alley of varying a process compulsively or obsessively. When he does he can expect to lessen the results. Auditing today, by the experience of a very large number of auditors, is a very severe discipline on the individual. It is not an art, and it never will be an art. It is a precision science. In the old days, all this talk about art and intuition and instinctiveness cost a lot of preclears the benefit of auditing. Auditing in the long ago was tremendously complicated but it was none the less precise. Now that it is very simple it is still very precise.
Amongst these processes an understanding of communication lag and Opening Procedure of 8-C were chose as the two processes to be taught to a very large area which contained a large number of auditors. This area had been noteworthy, heretofore, for the strange results “obtained” by auditors and the strange techniques which were used in it. A couple of auditors were sent into this area to teach everybody communication lag and Opening Procedure of 8-C. Actually these two auditors were originally from this area. They did so, and several lives have been reported saved to date, and a great many cases have been salvaged, and the entire science is looking up in that particular area simply because the area was taught nothing but communication lag and the Opening Procedure of 8-C and did nothing thereafter but this. Out in the outskirts of this area a couple of auditors varied Opening Procedure by Duplication and were reported to be having very good luck with the variation, but these two auditors were not part of the crew who were taught Opening Procedure of 8-C and communication lag, and the results they are obtaining are very junior to the results obtained by their own fellows very close by.

It could be said that the only real danger in auditing was failure. Auditing is the start, change and stop of aberration, or the creation of ability. Today creation of ability takes prominence to a point where aberration drops out of sight and is forgotten. But the auditor who does not obtain results is demonstrating to himself that he cannot control human aberration and human ability, and a demonstration of his failure to himself is sufficient to make him slightly incapable in handling his own difficulties. Thus it is a tremendously important thing that we have processes which, when used exactly as given, and used with skill, produce uniformly good results on preclears. An auditor using these on preclears gets better, and better, and better, and better even when he doesn’t have any auditing himself -- a thing which was not the story in 1950. When you can control aberration in others, when you can increase the ability of others, you certainly do not worry about your own. An auditor who has consistent failures will eventually drop back to self-auditing, but these processes will cure even that. Self-auditing, of course, is the manifestation of going around running concepts or processes on one’s self. One is doing this because he has been made afraid, through his failure on others, of his ability to control his own engrams, facsimiles, thoughts and concepts, and he seeks to control them through auditing. It is not necessary for an individual to audit himself in order to control his own machinery.

Before anyone should adventure in the direction of testing the “One-Shot-Clear” or doing anything about exteriorizing the awareness of awareness unit and so making a Clear, he should be entirely conversant with these processes. Actually, any of these processes run long enough would probably result in an exteriorization. There are faster ways to achieve an exteriorization than these processes, but these processes are preliminary to them. The preclear who cannot follow the auditor’s orders will not sit there and do a subjective -- which is to say, an out-of-sight, in his own mind -- process without varying it. The trouble with the preclear is that he cannot duplicate, he cannot follow the orders of the auditor, and when the auditor tells him to run a concept or a thought, the preclear probably pays token nod to this and runs entirely something else. A very close E-Meter review of a number of preclears who were not advancing under “subjective processes” disclosed that each and every one of them had never run what the auditor told them to run. They were afraid of obeying the auditor, they were afraid of what the auditor was doing, they were afraid of his skill. Opening Procedure of 8-C remedies this fear and brings the inability and unwillingness of the preclear out into the open where it belongs.

In Opening Procedure by Duplication we very often get a preclear “blowing the session” where the auditor has run an insufficient quantity of Opening Procedure of 8-C. When a preclear “blows the session” on Opening Procedure by Duplication, the auditor has missed. He has not run enough Opening Procedure of 8-C. How much is enough Opening Procedure of 8-C? Until the person is in very good condition as homo sapiens.

Remember that whether the command is physical or mental, the auditor must observe communication lag. In Opening Procedure of 8-C he simply repeats the process command all the way through, and then again, and again and again and in such a way flattens any lag that shows up. He does not repeat the command on which the preclear got the lag. It is easier to do this way, it is a more orderly process when it is done this way. By very close theory, the actual command on which the preclear lagged should be repeated again, but this is not done.
These are the six basic processes which we must know before we can constitute ourselves auditors. These are the processes which are getting results. These are the processes which are making able men and able women.

These processes can be varied into specific uses where ability is concerned. One of the uses of these, for instance, would be to raise the ability of a pilot to fly a plane, or a person to drive a car, simply by having him approach, touch, and let go of various parts of the object to be controlled. The exact procedure as given above of Opening Procedure is run, except that the object to be controlled is used. Typists have learned to type better, people have learned to drive cars better, and many other abilities have been recovered simply by running 8-C. One could envision a pianist who was getting tired, run-down, or upset by his music, coming into full awareness of it once more simply by running 8-C on his instrument or instruments.

If we wanted to increase the ability of a salesman, it would only be necessary to run any of the above processes in their proper position on the tone scale to increase his ability. Abilities increase, in general, when these are run.

When does one run what process? One should have a copy of the Chart of Human Evaluation from “Science of Survival” and know that chart well in order to understand exactly where one starts. In general practice, however, an auditor simply starts with two-way communication, and when he is getting answers to his questions and is taking rather freely with his preclear he goes into Elementary Straightwire, and from Elementary Straightwire he goes into Opening Procedure of 8-C.

There is a variation on two-way communication. If you have a difficulty in getting a preclear started in two-way communication it is a very easy thing to get him talking on problems, and from problems to run this one, “What problem could you be to yourself?” “What problem could you be to others?” running one and then the other each time until the preclear understood he could be an infinity of problems. Many people are so thoroughly scarce on problems that they will not let any go until they know that they can create problems for themselves. When a case is stalling, he is generally finding it very hard to give up a pet problem because he knows he can’t have any more. Of course, all this is basically situated on answers. He can’t have any answers so he has to have problems, then from problems he finally gets to a point where he can’t even have these.

Anyone desiring to be a good auditor should follow this chapter very closely, should provide himself with a copy of “The Creation of Human Ability,” and should also procure “Science of Survival” and study them. The best way to become an auditor is to be trained as an auditor. We have found this so much the case that while we offered an examination to anyone who wished to take it to the grade of Hubbard Certified Auditor, or Hubbard Dianetic Auditor, we never expected them to pass it -- for they never had, even though it was on the most simple elements as you see before you. There is no substitute for good training.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

STAFF AUDITORS’ CONFERENCE OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959

REGARDING HCO BULLETIN OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959:

HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING
OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES

Nearly everyone here has been trained in these exact processes and, if anyone here hasn’t been trained in these processes, then everything on this Bulletin applies except Engram Running. The whole bulletin applies except Engram Running.

There will be a staff Theta Clearing Course, and those auditors who are on staff who have not been trained by an ACC in Engram Running will have an opportunity to get that training; and not too many months will go by before they are up to this, too. So this will apply at that time. Maybe it will have shifted slightly by that time, but I don’t think very much.

Now what you are looking at here is the aggregate know-how that was gained and assembled on the 21st American ACC.

UNDERCUTTING CASES:

Now the undercuts of cases became a vital necessity. This whole ACC was devoted to the R factor plus Engram Running. It was discovered that the thing that keeps individuals from running engrams adequately was their R factor, and when their R factor was very poor they could not run an engram adequately. Now the funny part of it is that an engram can be contacted and run and, if done persistently and well without ARC breaks, can run the following Scale of Confront. Here is the Scale of Confront, just to refresh your minds:

DUB-IN: 	Lowest scale. This scale could possibly invert, and down below that you might have a black dub-in. Once you had run blackness, you would find a dub-in case. But the scale we are mostly interested in, because that is the one we most commonly see, begins at the bottom with dub-in, runs up, turns
BLACK. 	Runs through blackness, turns
INVISIBLE. Runs from invisible to
ELSEWHERE—a desire to be elsewhere. The way they solve things is elsewhereness. Runs up from elsewhereness to
ABILITY TO CONFRONT. Runs from confront to
EXPERIENCE or PARTICIPATE. And only then are you up to
BEINGNESS.

Now this is the Confront Scale, and it is the scale of disintegrating Reality. It is how a person handles terminals or a situation. A person handles terminals and situations above all this by not having to participate, by not having to confront, finding no necessity to do anything about it unless he chooses so on his own determination; and if he did so, could do so with no personal liability. He could experience or not as the case may be. Now you’ll find a lower harmonic on this in some philosophic level of somebody saying, “Yap, yap, well, I could, or I couldn’t, and that’s my choice,” etc, well, he hasn’t got any power of choice. He’s just using this as the final escape mechanism—a philosophic escape mechanism.

If I said “bottom”—the bottom mechanism—it would be the one most commonly contacted. But you are apt to get a mechanism which is philosophic, which is simply a figure-figure mechanism about a situation, and the individual feels that if he could just figure it out he would be all right. In other words, this is a thought-thinkingness figure-figure, and he not-ises by figure-figure. Such a case, not-ising by figure-figure, will turn into a dub-in case as soon as you start curing his figure-figure; would turn into a black case; would turn into an invisible case; would turn into a confront case; would turn into an experience case. Which is quite interesting.

Now it is true that an engram could be found, started, and, if the auditor were good and held the individual right on the time period and had the time period well spotted, and had the overt and motivator, no matter how crazy they seemed or sounded, contacted, he could theoretically, just by running that engram, run a person through the totality of this Reality Scale. See? So there’s another approach here. You get a guy who is figure-figure, find the engram necessary to resolve the case. First he figure-figures about it, and he’ll run it, and run it just with the auditing commands—the five auditing commands to run an engram—he figure-figures about it, then after a while he dubs-in about it, then after a while it all goes black; and then after a while it eases into an invisibility—it’s just not there—somatics are, and discomfort and other things are, but it’s not there—and its not-thereness suddenly turns into little flicks—little flicks of confront. And boy, he goes elsewhere. It just starts to turn on and he gets it for the least little Flick and he goes elsewhere. And then pretty soon he can confront the thing; then pretty soon he can participate—he can run it in valence, squarely in valence, right in its moment of time, at which time it becomes pretty damn real. And then he goes to being able to put it there or not put it there, and its importance-unimportance factor flattens out so that it’s neither important nor unimportant. And that engram is licked.

Theoretically, this could happen. That is actually the way I run engrams. But you will find in auditing in the HGC that the public expects of you a different thing than is expected of you by students. And that’s why I wanted to talk to you for a few minutes. They expect a different thing. They expect you to be interested in their case. And that is quite amusing—because it’s your job to get them interested in their case. But they want you to be interested in their case. A11 right, any case is interesting, so that’s a pretty easy one. But you can get so interested in their case that you do a lot of talking to them and burn up an awful lot of auditing time. So there is some point where your interest becomes an indulgence, and on the happier side of that, where the pc is pleased you’re interested in his case, and that’s enough. Then you get him interested in his case.

All right. Now, we have for a long time not used PT problems. I’ll tell you why very bluntly. It was not unusual for an auditor to burn up twelve and a half hours on a PT problem. It was not unusual. He did this with two motives: one just yak, letting the pc go on and on, poor control, not controlling the pc’s comm outflow, letting the pc get into non-essentials. And the other side of it: he was trying to run the whole case with the PT problem. Well, wonderful—you can run a whole case with a PT problem—but why? Since it’s slow freight. That’s a very slow way to go about it. So we take a PT problem now and handle the session in this fashion:

We establish the rudiments every time we establish a session. Find the auditor, find the pc, find the auditing room, establish a goal for the session. Do that rapidly. We don’t care what goal it is, so long as he has some kind of a goal. And then we ask for a PT problem. And we take an E-Meter (up to that time we didn’t care whether the pc was handling the cans or not) but we take an E-Meter, and we have this PT problem appear on the E-Meter, or we don’t run it. Got it? And we run the PT problem that appears on the E-Meter. So we get him to state this problem, and we don’t care how he states the problem, because all we want to know is “Did it drop?” That tells you at once you won’t run a PT problem on a stage-4 needle. Didn’t drop-see, that’s all within the requirements—it didn’t drop, so skip it. It isn’t going to be real to the pc anyhow. You’ll have to do something else with this case. He’s probably got thousands of problems; probably all of life is a problem. Probably every time he walks in a room he installs an engram. You know, the furniture’s there—that’s an engram. Get the idea? So why worry about a problem?

But if you got a PT problem that drops, you should remove yourself at that moment from all temptation. As soon as the problem drops, and as soon as he states that it is a problem to him and is worrying him in present time, you take the cans away from him and put the thing aside. Just lay the E-Meter aside. You’re not interested in an E-Meter from there on. The reason why is because you’ll increase the drop, you’ll increase more drop and more drop as you ask him about it. You’re already running it. And the problem is going to change. You have seen this phenomenon. You’re not interested in a problem changing. The fact of your laying aside the E-Meter will rather convince him that you have found it and that’s it. And you only want to know this: the personnel associated with that problem. You don’t want to know more about the problem. You just want to know the personnel associated with that problem. His wife, his mother, and his wife’s boy friend, or something of that sort. And that’s the personnel associated with the problem. You just check that off.

Now, I’m going to ask you to take a notebook and a ball-point into the auditing room, because you’ve got two or three things to do here that require a list. I want you to get accustomed to establishing a list and then flattening it, not trying to run the case all over new again every time the case changes. That’s one of the ways to waste time. You run one terminal, and of course the case changes, the problems change, everything changes on the case. If you re-assessed it at this time to find a new terminal, you’d for sure find new terminals. Well, the devil with it. Let’s just flatten what we contact, and when we’re contacting and scouting and using cans and the E-Meter, just write down what we find. Then put the E-Meter aside and run what we’ve found until we get rid of all of that. Now you’re going to do something new—give him back the E-Meter cans. Got the idea?

Pcs don’t much like to hold onto these E-Meter cans forever. Furthermore, they become restive, and they want to scratch their heads, and they want to do this, and they want to rassle around, and most pcs you get are slightly nervous in this direction. Why should you worry about it? Because the E-Meter is only going to give you a certain amount of the information that is quite valid. Now, you’re going to write down the personnel connected with this PT problem. You’re going to take SELECTED PERSON OVERT-WITHHOLD on each one of these people. And the commands for this are right here:

“Think of something you have done to (	 ),” and 
“Think of something you have withheld from (	).”

And you are going to run one of those commands and the next command, and then the next command—first command again, then the second command, first command, second command. In that way, you’ll never lay an egg on an unbalanced flow. No flow will unbalance on you. They’ll always stay there more or less stable. The case won’t suddenly turn black when it’s not supposed to turn black, and so forth. You won’t ever over-run a flow and the pc will never get upset.

Now, let’s look at this again. You have written down “wife”, “his mother”, and “his wife’s boy friend”. Which one do you run first? You have to ask this question to establish that terminal: “Which one of these things do you think is the most real to you?” The individual says, “Oh, Mother, of course.” Who cares? That’s what he says. All right, so that’s the first one you take. Then you take the two remaining ones: “Which one is most real?” That’s the one you knock out. That leaves you one more person. Knock that one out.

Now, there is something that is not stated here. I just typed this up rapidly for you—I didn’t have a backing sheet, so there are typographicals because I couldn’t even see what I was typing. This has a criterion, and it is an old criterion of all PT problems—it is, they are PT problems. By definition, a PT problem must exist right now in the physical universe. By definition. So therefore, the personnel involved in a PT problem must exist right now in the physical universe. He will tell you halfway through the run, that “It was actually my mother who influenced me this way”—ah skip it. That’s not a PT personnel in that problem. His mother isn’t really part of, let us say—it was her mother that was part of the PT problem. In other words, the people have to be actually associated with the problem and existing at this time in this pc’s life influencing that problem, for this to be a PT problem. So therefore, we don’t dive in any direction to pick up any new personnel we don’t care about.
We get this problem flat. It is only flat if it answers this question: “Now, what do you have to do about that problem now?” And the pc says, “Nothing.” It’s flat. For our purposes, it’s flat. The only reason we’re running it is we’re trying to get rid of the obsession he has to jump out of the auditing room and go do something about this problem. If he doesn’t have to do anything about it, it’s flat. But if he says, “Oh, it’s flat, because I could go and talk to my wife’s boy friend now, and I could handle him.” No. Start right back over from the beginning—the first person you wrote down—and run that person again for a short time—next person for a short time—next person for a short time—on these exact auditing questions. “Now, what do you have to do about the problem?” He’ll tell you, “Well, I don’t have to do anything about it just now.” That’s enough. You consider that flat. Got it?

All right. This will keep you out of all kinds of trouble. And it will keep the pc from being all hung up in trying to go elsewhere in an auditing session. So much for that.

This is done at the beginning of every session. That first section there—it says, “STARTING A CASE: AND BEGIN EVERY SESSION”. Well, you not only start each intensive with this, but you start every session with this, and you do the same thing.

If it takes you two hours to flatten the PT problem, I will think something is hung up. This is a rapid one. This is not a slow one. If it takes a couple of hours, well, something’s really haywire here. He didn’t say the problem, or he didn’t do something, or he’s holding something back. But notice we have said, “Think of something you have done to” and “Think of something you have withheld from”. This will also get the pc talking to you, because it gets rid of the withhold. Got that? All right. So much for that.

Now, DYNAMIC STRAIGHT WIRE you were taught in the 21st American, but the commands for the general public were not given to you. And they are given to you here on this sheet, this HCO Bulletin. Now, the only thing you are looking for is a represented substitute. In other words, you’re looking for substitutes. You ask him for a substitute for himself, and you ask him for a substitute on the basis of “Tell me something that would represent yourself.” And he says, “Represent myself? Oh, that’s very, very easy—a tree.” Get your ball-point busy at that point and put down “tree”. Got it? Now, if he even says “toothbrush”, get your ball-point busy. The proper answer, of course, is “Myself”. It’s just as simple as that. But the more a case is daffy on this line, the more attention you’re going to pay to it. So you just run this whole assessment right straight on through: Self, sex, family, children, groups, mankind, the animal kingdom, birds, beasts, fish, vegetables, trees, growing things, matter, energy, space, time, spirits, souls, gods, God. Just one question. Each time you say this you just take one of those: “Tell me something that would represent, for instance, souls.” The individual says, “Running water.” Get the ball-point busy. Write it down. When you have got this whole list assessed, take the list you have written and run:

“Think of something you have done to (a toothbrush).” 
“Think of something you have withheld from (a toothbrush).”

You’ll be amazed, but they have actually done something to a toothbrush, and they have actually withheld something from a toothbrush. This is pretty terrific. Quite amazing. But you are only looking for daffiness on this, and a sensible answer you don’t pay much attention to. You say, “Tell me something that would represent trees.” And the fellow says, “Leaves.” Now, there’s a matter of judgment involved here. What if he said, “Shadows”? Well, I don’t know. That’s a matter of judgment. Try to run it or not try to run it, as the case may be. If it looks daffy to you, run it. You’re the judge. Got the idea?

Now don’t let it look daffy to you when you say, “Tell me something that would represent spirits,” and he says, “Souls.” When you say “souls”, he says “spirits”. That’s not daffy.
But how about this guy that gives you the perfect representation all the way down the line like a little wound-up doll? You already, in looking him over, find out he has a sticky needle, he’s registering at 6 on your E-Meter when you first put the cans in his hands, and he gives you all the answers perfectly. That case is giving you an intellectual response which has nothing to do with any reality under the sun, moon or stars. Something he read in a book and a machine is rattling it off. So you do the assessment again. The second time you go through you’re liable to trip him on something. Got the idea? So, if you get a perfect assessment, run it again. I actually don’t care how many times you run it, but you’re apt to be wasting time, because by two-way comm and definition alone you may not get anywhere with a very badly machined case. Nevertheless, a couple of times through, he should trip somewhere. Machine case generally does.

The rule governing Dynamic Straight Wire is: That which doesn’t fall out by two-way comm just on assessment. He says it, and then it looks funny to him, and he laughs, and he thinks this is for the birds, and he says, “Oh, no, that wouldn’t be one-actually, a substitute for a tree would be a leaf, or a small tree,” or something like this. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with letting him correct himself, because you are actually auditing him just by asking him the question. People, when they straighten out things in their own categories, very often recover very, very easily.

All right. Let’s take up this next one here. That’s an easy way to run Dynamic Straight Wire, isn’t it, huh? I would ask you to do this, however, in view of the fact that you are doing a professional job of auditing for the public mainly, and that is, I’d ask you to memorize that list—rather than hold a bulletin in your hand and read it.

Now, the next thing we’re going to run into here is PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE. This is a bid for two things: One, the lowest level case there is—because experience, to him, is a dub-in, usually. Or it’s a figure-figure, or it’s something, so it compares to the Reality Scale. His definition of experience compares with the Reality Scale.

His definition of experience is a direct index to the Reality Scale, by the way. What does experience mean? He’ll say, “Experience—that’s very easy. To consider.” There you’ve got your figure-figure level. “What does experience mean?” Well, “To write about it or make something out of it—experience is that thing which you use to manufacture the future.” He’s dub. “Now, what is an experience?” “Well, experience is that which you try not to have.” That’s probably black or invisible. Or, “It’s the thing you forget,” would be blackness. “Experience is something you try to forget”— invisibility level. “Experience is something you have to cope with.” Obsessive confront. “Experience is—ah—well, experience—that’s pretty hard to define—experience. I guess it’s to go through something.” You’re getting a fairly sane response—to go through something. To have an actual adventure, something of this sort. You’re getting a fairly sane reaction to experience.

So don’t think that Past and Future Experience is pegging up at the highest level of the Reality Scale. It isn’t. This process was found, in the 21st American, to be the undercut process. This was the lowest undercut process. And this is a killer, and it is very trying to an auditor. A very trying process, because it offers so many wonderful temptations. And that’s what’s wrong with this process.

Now, you run these two questions, one after the other, with no assessment, no E-Meter, nothing. You just put the E-Meter down after you’ve done the Dynamic Straight Wire thing, because on Dynamic Straight Wire, when you said, “Children,” the needle was going on a gradual shift over here, and a little theta bop now and then. You said, “Children,” and it fell a dial, or all of a sudden started doing a big theta bop in the middle. When you got off of children, it settled down to the other pattern. That told you that you had something to be run on the subject of children. That he will also, at the same time, give you a daffy reading, he will tell you some daffy terminal to represent—so you needed the E-Meter there. But you don’t need the E-Meter on Past and Future Experience, not even vaguely. You can just put the E-Meter aside and turn it off, and just run these two commands. Just clear them with the pc very bluntly. Say, “We’re going to run something about experience. Now, we’re going to see how you get along with this little process, and here are the commands of it: What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience? And the other command is: What part of the future would you be willing to experience? Now, here’s the first command: What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?”

The answer actually called for is a time, isn’t it? And this is a time process. But there are very few preclears that will find this out for a very long period. They won’t give you anything but super-significances and ball-up, and the pc who is real bad off will give you a type of experience. You accept all these things. You say, “What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” He says, “Well, eating cake.” That’s an answer? That’s an answer. And that’s followed with this: “What part of the future would you be willing to experience?” He says, “Well, more cake.” That’s an answer. So you just accept any answer that he gives you on the line. It gradually will boil down to a time answer. And it will gradually go back-track. The longer you run it, the more track you’re going to cover, the more future you’re going to cover. And there will be periods when the individual is absolutely sure that he is totally predicting the future. He gets into implants, let us say, that tell him what the future is all about. He’s stuck 8000 years ago, but he’s telling you about the future. All kinds of odd phenomena show up. But engrams come up and slap you in the teeth, one right after the other.

You run this for a while, and the individual says, “OOOh, well, you know I really wouldn’t be willing—well, I would be willing—I don’t know—I would—oohh, well—I really don’t know—dental operation there, I was a young boy—I don’t know if I’d like to re-experience that—I guess I could re-experience sitting in the—no, no, no. I could re-experience—I could re-experience the next day after it.” You say, “That’s fine,” and just mark it down with the ball-point: “Dental experience as a child.” That one he can’t confront. Now, you’re never going to run it as an engram, but you’re going to have some tag of it as an engram. See, it may show you something.

As you go along and he runs into hot experiences, real, real hot experiences one right after the other, it is about time you put the E-Meter back in his paws. Get the idea? You don’t have to start it with the E-Meter, but if he starts running into hot experiences, or if he gets into an engram and he can’t seem to get out of the thing, the thing to do is not run the engram but give him an E-Meter and spot it in time for him. Get it spotted in time. If he’s running into them hot and heavy, one right after the other, just leave him with the E-Meter. But if there is only one you have to spot in time, and then in a little while he doesn’t seem to be running any more, take the cans away from him again and put the E-Meter aside. But if he starts running into one that obsessively sticks with him, don’t let him flounder in the thing for an hour. Don’t let him wallow in this one. Because he will just wallow in it, and this is no process-this is not a good process to run an engram with. So you let him out, OK? And the way you let him out is to locate it in time with an E-Meter. And you go on running the process. Now, as I say, it offers enormous temptations to the auditor—beautiful temptations to run the things contacted. As you sit this out, you actually are going to change the characteristic of the engram you will ultimately run on the case. But you keep listing engrams that he runs into. Keep listing engrams that he runs into, well knowing that he will favor motivators. For every one of those motivators there is an overt. Now an engram that he consistently and persistently keeps hitting and hitting and hitting, you are going to find in that engram probably the engram you will run, eventually. But not until he is in PT, out of the engram, it seems to have dropped out, and so forth, and he seems to be all smooth on this thing, are you going to reach for that one again. You are going to flatten the process and then go to the engram.

Here we go. ENGRAM RUNNING. Of course, that is run all the way through with an E-Meter. Give him the cans and start out on this engram that you more or less found with Past and Future Experience.

Now, this is going to undercut cases, and I don’t care how long you run it. I don’t care if you run it for two weeks, because this is a very productive process. But if you are going to run it over that period of time, it isn’t noted here, but some THIRD RAIL had better be brought in here some place. And he’d better be shifted up finally until havingness. And you put in PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE, right after that line, “COMBINE WITH THIRD RAIL IF RUN MORE THAN 8 HOURS”. If you run it eight hours, this guy’s havingness is going to start dropping on him, and you are going to run into difficulties. You could get into difficulties. All right.

ENGRAM RUNNING. Well, Engram Running, when the case has been prepared this way, becomes very simple. A case will start running like a little typewriter, if you have got this Past and Future Experience pretty flat.

Once you have picked an engram, make sure you get its motivator not only its overt. If you have got an overt, get the motivator. If you have got the motivator, get the overt. And only when you have got that have you got an incident. Now, an engram that is having one side of the overt or motivator run will get sticky. You have got to find the other side, and you have got to get both of these things in date. Normally, this will start showing up on Past and Future Experience. Well, we are going to run this engram with an E-Meter, we are going to consider that we have an incident when we have got both a motivator and an overt that fit together. And if the thing is just awful sticky, and dubby, and shockingly poor, and a lot of other things, you just started running it too fast, that is all.

We have got several things you can do at this state of the case, and so forth. Probably the best of them is go back to running Past and Future Experience. You didn’t flatten it.

Now, here is this Engram Running. If you notice here, it says you run all the commands that run an engram twice. Run them all twice. That’s because “Find something unimportant in that incident” is going to stir up stuff that newly has to be confronted.

Once you have chosen an engram and you have begun to run it, you have had it. That’s it. That’s the engram you are going to run. So it has to be chosen with considerable care. Listen to me now: If you re-assess the case after you have started an engram, you will get almost any other incident that is hot to drop more than the engram you started, because most of the charge is already dissipated. So if you keep re-assessing a case, thinking another engram would be better to run for the case, you are of course always going to find another engram. You will never find the one you started to run again dropping with as much velocity. You see? That’s something you have to keep in mind. If you are going to run an engram, that’s the engram you are going to run. It’s got to have its overt or motivator; suppose you are running the overt side of it, you have got to have the motivator side of it. So you really haven’t got an incident until you have got both of these things located. And once you have started to run that, you have had it. Because it will discharge its charge and won’t register on a meter any more the way some other incident will.

You can get a case just stirred all up and run all backwards and upside down, and that’s the biggest mistake an auditor can make. I have given you the reason for the mistake-because now almost anything will drop better than the one you partially flattened.

If in doubt, run the engram you were running. If you are not getting rapid recovery, go back to the first engram you ran and considered flat and run it again. Sometimes, it will only take you fifteen minutes to run all five commands. You do it very fast. But very often something happened that it re-charged in some fashion. Very peculiar.

If you leave about a third of an engram missing and unflat, the whole engram has a tendency to charge up again. It is kind of funny. But you have got to flatten the engram you contacted.

Now the rule of the Last Largest Object is the only one I want you to pay any attention to in questioning the pc. Pc apparently is getting out of it. Change your auditing command. You are running, “What part of that incident can you confront?” He says, “Well, I don’t know, it’s pretty unreal to me, I don’t know whether this happened or not.” What was the last largest object? If he said anything that was offbeat and showed an unwillingness to run any more of the engram, you want to find out at once what was the last largest object that you contacted in there. And he says, “A house.” You are going to shift your auditing command now to: “What part of that house can you confront?” And you are going to run that simply until he is back in the incident, and then you are going to go off on to “What part of that incident can you confront?” Doesn’t require any vast bridge. You just tell him you are going to shift.

In that way, using that rule, you can actually pick up an engram where he was running as Abraham Lincoln, and in the engram he was shot in Ford’s Theatre—you know—and the date is obviously correct. Dropped and everything. And then he runs John Wilkes Booth—no, he wasn’t Lincoln, he was John Wilkes Booth. And so help me God, you may find that he was the Secret Service Agent who had a couple of drinks that night and wasn’t watching. You don’t care whether he runs it dub or not. Don’t give up because he’s running it wrong, because it’ll come out right.

There was a joke on us in the 21st American. We had our paws on Bowie. He was Jim Bowie. And of course everybody doubted this, because it is a famous historical figure. And they tried to do everything under the sun to shake him out of this engram, and they finally went back to running it, and it was the one that flattened out. The trouble was, he had dub on it, which made Bowie die the wrong kind of a death under wrong circumstances. But as he ran it, the more he ran it, the more he ran it, the more right the circumstances got. And it finally all came out in the wash. He did run the death of Jim Bowie.

Historical figures, however, are usually the yo-yo point used. The guy went out of his own body at the death; there was some current historical figure; he said, “That is the identity necessary to resolve this incident. That identity could handle it. So I will just be Catherine the Great.” And he goes and runs Catherine the Great. The only mistake is to let him escape out of the time period. Maybe he did yo-yo right into the palace, maybe he did go right through her skull. But the right engram will shake out, because the Reality Scale is run by running an engram.

Theoretically, you could clear a person just by running one engram well enough. So never get off onto quantitative engrams. An engram is merely something for him to get used to confronting, and creating, and mocking up, and so forth. It’s just a playing field you are using. The significance, the amount of change he gets in his life, none of these things have anything to do with it at all. It is just how well he can handle a mental image picture, and you have chosen a honey for him to handle. That is about all it amounts to. And when he finds out he can handle this thing from A to Izzard and beginning to end, and he can do it well, then the next engram to resolve the case will run quite rapidly. And you will run on down and finally run his basic, earliest shift of identity, which is the rock. And formerly he said, “There is a beautiful, clear sphere—that’s the rock. And that’s all the rock.” Oh, heck. When you get several engrams run and get the rock as one of the engrams, you find out this beautiful, clear sphere was something he customarily clamped around thetans as a trap, and they sometimes clamped it around him, and there were raiding parties, and there was all kinds of personnel and there is drama and there is strain, and there is scenery and everything else. When you contacted the rock first and ran the rock first, he was insufficiently able to contact things. The date when he was mocking up this thing, he was so capable of mocking up that later on this poor, little, weak ole thetan, years and years and centuries and so forth afterwards going back to mock up this rock—uh-uh— it’s too beefy. That’s too much engram for him to confront first off.

So you choose the engrams—it doesn’t much matter what you choose. You will find that every sexual incident you contact is a bounce from a death. A little rule for you. So don’t let me catch anybody in the HGC running prenatals, birth, conception, because that is a bounce. Those are all tied in with the death, and the death is the engram which is necessary to resolve the case. So you keep running Past and Future Experience until you get them down to that—OK? Leave the second dynamic incidents severely alone.

Now it can be that he died, and he died is followed by a conception sequence, and he goes back to the old body to see if it is still decently buried—you know—and then he can’t find the person that he thought he was going to be, get the next body from, and he gets all confused. And mess-ups of this character can occur. But keep him on the incident. Is this part of the text? When you finish a death and go through the exteriorization sequence, right at the end of it there is a conception or a prenatal or a birth. They quite ordinarily bounce into it, and you don’t want it. You want nothing to do with it. So you stop him when you have got all of the exteriorization run.

There is a lot to know about engrams. You have been taught all this, but I am just showing you what you can do to win in the HGC with Engram Running. This would be a good, clean job then.

Every time you run an engram, now is the time to use some Not-Is Straight Wire, with its ordinary commands which you know. They are:

“Recall something that you implied was unimportant.” “Recall something somebody else thought was important.”

Don’t ever let a pc run it in reverse, because it discharges havingness in about five commands. That is real rough the other way, too.

All right. Now there we have a rundown that will get engrams run, that will get ordinary, run-of-the-mill cases squared around, and that will get a lot done. But what about people who were not through the American 21st? And during that period of time up until they start in with a Theta Clearing Course, to run actual engrams on pcs, how about these people? Well, you have Selected Person Overts, with the “withhold” command added, and you will have a new bulletin out on these things, and so forth. We want that auditing to be relatively muzzled. It will win and everything will go along just dandy. But if you have got some case (and this is more for D.O.P.s than anything else)—if you have got some case that was awfully hard to start, very low random profile, you’d better turn it over to a graduate of the 21st American. And if you have got some case that, after he ran along for a while and was getting up to a point where he’d just run engrams beautifully, and the whole track’s opening up, everything is going along just dandy, and it is certain that the engram necessary to resolve the case is just waiting, give him an auditor that can run it.

In other words, you can run an HGC this way: You can get some auditors that set pcs up to run engrams. You got the idea? And then you can have some auditors that run engrams. This is not any real violation of the Auditor’s Code, because that will still give him the best processes and the best treatment for the pc that can be given.

Now there is no reason why, particularly after a staff Theta Clearing Course, that everybody can’t run a regimen of this sort. But running it in the HGC, with all the profiles being submitted to me and all the Case Analysis Reports—the Case Analysis Reports now are more vital than profiles, because R changed on a case does not necessarily change the profile at all. You should know about that. You can change the R of the case without changing the profile. The person answered the same questions, only he answered them with Reality. This is quite remarkable. We need a brand new test. That test is in development right at this moment. It is a confront test, and that test will be coming up, but there is no reason to rush it, particularly. Let’s just do it by Case Analysis.

I will get out a Bulletin that will take care of auditors who were not trained to run engrams, what they will run. But you already have data and material on this, and it is just as before, what you have been running.

Now, to start a case out with NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE is adventurous. That’s an adventurous thing to do. That’s a rough thing to do. We learned a great many things in the 21st American ACC. Learned a great many things, and that was one of them. Selected Persons Overt-Withhold is very, very superior in undercutting cases to Selected Persons Overts. The only main change we have got is that we run Selected Person Overt-Withhold commands, just as it is given here in PT problem. That is a wonderful thing to do with a case, as long as the terminal is real to the pc. And there is no real reason that running a Scientologist, who knows what the command is, why ARC Break Straight Wire cannot be run on a person by an auditor who has not been through an Engram Running Course. That’s a beautiful process.

I want to tell you something else. Can I tell you something here? A lot of research was done in the 21st American ACC, and students didn’t see me as much as they thought they should, I suppose, but I was around. And I never saw so many flips and changes and vagaries in my life as I saw in that particular unit. The reports which I got were very—very helpful to me—very, very helpful to Scientology at large. There was a great deal done in that course. I spent about three weeks of the course—did very rapid research just in catching up with some of these undercuts. Because, let me assure you, the R factor in most of the cases you approach is so low that it poses a problem of running greater than we had ever imagined. Therefore, these are the processes that we are handing out.

Now, these are a Not-Is type of process. Dynamic Straight Wire runs a straight identification, but the rest of these things are Not-Is types of processes. To cure somebody from not-ising. When a person can confront something, he no longer has to not-is it.

But there was a funny command came up along the line, that I don’t fully understand yet, but it takes care of a theta body. Now this is part of the research that was never given to the 21st American. And this is a peculiar darned thing. You can write it down on the back of this Bulletin, if you want to.

It is:

“Recall a time when you thought something bad was unimportant.”

And that is just about the wildest thing you ever saw. Now that runs all by itself but can be combined with:

“Recall a time somebody else thought something bad was important.”

And you will run all the newspapers off the case. The second command there is really not essential, but you just run this first command repetitively, and if it seems to run down or something bad happens, flip over to the other command. But you will as-is a theta body.

This is the doggondest thing you ever saw. It is a perfectly wild pitch. I was just adding up all possible combinations and working in all possible directions, and this one fell out of the hamper, and it doesn’t integrate too well with the rest of your data. But this is the goofy one.

Now, something else came up in the 21st American that I should tell you in the HGC, and that is: After nine years, we have found out WHY. We had nine years of HOW, and now in the ninth year we find out why. Why people are aberrated. Why they are sick. Why they act the way they do. Why individuation takes place. And that is all wrapped up with WITHHOLD. I had withhold earlier, but didn’t shake it all out of the hamper, because I didn’t have the overts to go with it. We find out that an individual gets sick by having the overt impulse to make somebody else sick and then withholds it, because it is less social to give people illnesses. So he gets them himself. This is Freudian transference, it is a whole number of things. So when you run these overts, run the withhold with it and the case will start finding out why.

The theta body thing, and the masses and ridges, why, they run out when you ask a person to recall a time when he thought something bad was unimportant, or recall—well, that is the best command—recall a time when he thought something bad was unimportant. When you run this, you evidently run the center pin of the withhold. But you will get his tolerance. And this is the first straight ethical process, evidently, we have. It raises a person’s ethics. It as-ises a theta body. It takes demon bodies and things like that off cases. I tested it two or three times here, just monkeying around with this thing, and it is one of the wilder ones. This is a wild pitch, that particular process.

So you could say that when a field doesn’t immediately disintegrate, when you can’t get an individual easily in the engram, when the field stays persistently black or something like that, you have got another string to your bow, and I don’t care if you use it. But if you do use it, know this: It runs as an automaticity on such a demon case. He runs br-r-r-r-t—the last two thousand years he has been not-ising and saying it was unimportant that something was bad. And he will start coming up with, “Well, I should do something—no, I shouldn’t do something—well, what is this? I should do something about it. I shouldn’t do something about it. I have been very neglectful, but that really isn’t bad. Not really. Somebody dying from the bullet wound I gave ‘em—that really isn’t bad. But—” And he is stuck right with the consideration on all of his overts—consequences of overts. They all must be unimportant. And it reduces his ethical level. But I have now seen two demon bodies disintegrate just with that one command just disintegrate—and this is the first time we ever had something that would disintegrate the astral body. So we find out at once that the astral body was an aberration. It isn’t a necessary thing to make a thetan stick in the head at all.

All right. Now I wanted to give you this rundown, because today you were having a little bit of a rough time doing a transition from student to pro auditor, and I wanted to talk to you, even though it burned up some of your valuable time and mine. And ask you to sic semper transit, huh?

Now are there any questions? Yes, Jean.

Q. I have two questions. In running of the engram, do you ignore what they were running in the ACC, or do you just go back and run them? My preclear has had several engrams started.

A. Now, if we look over this carefully, we see in running an incident: Find the engram necessary to resolve the case. Once you have chosen it and have begun to run it, be sure you have the motivator and the overt and then do not, do not, do not, do not, depart from that incident to run another that “drops better” or comes up. Now look here. The engrams that were run on them in the course are no longer going to fall. And an engram is not going to show on an E-Meter. And if there were several engrams run on somebody in the course, and the first one wasn’t flattened, then whoever audited them ought to be hit in the head with a sledge-hammer. There’s only one or two cases that got by with this, that I have checked up on so far, and it is about the most serious blunder that could be made. Now, what you do in a case that’s had an engram already started is get a lie reaction check—that’s all you want—of some sort or another, concerning this particular thing. You can put him on the E-Meter and ask him if it was run, and so forth, and ask him which one was the first one run. You could possibly get an occlusion, but usually the pc will tell you. There’s no particular reason to doubt the pc. Get the first one, and get that one flat, and then you have no choice but to pick up the next one and flatten that one.

This applies without regard to how many auditors were on the case. This also, you will find out, will sometimes apply to somebody who had an engram audited in 1950. The only trouble with a 1950 engram is that it is probably an operation in the current lifetime, or a prenatal in the current lifetime, and it was the wrong engram necessary to resolve the case, and you won’t get very far running the thing. And we have no data at this time, whether it’s best to pick that one up and run it or not. But I would say for sure that an engram that should have been run to resolve the case, such as a past death, if that was ever entered in all of those years, including 1950—it may no longer drop on the E-Meter, because some of its charge is gone. That is the engram necessary to resolve the case.

Yes, got another one?

Q. Yes. The Dynamic Straight Wire—do you keep running this until you have picked up all the daffy terminals, then go through it several times and get the daffy ones each time?

A. If you get a daffy one, if you get several daffy ones, you take those you got on the first run and run them. Don’t bother to go through again, because it will have straightened out. Enough will have straightened out to admit progress of the case. But if you don’t get any daffy ones through once, then run it again. Any other questions? Dale.

Dale: I just had a comment on that. One 1950 engram, in which the auditor blew session because it was whole track, was the engram necessary to resolve the case and finally showed up. The guy had been black since 1950.

A. Good. Picked it up and flattened it. Well, that’s a good job. That tells you that a black case, then, doesn’t necessarily require five or six weeks of preparation before you run an engram. You pick up an engram as early as you can on a case and charge through. But it doesn’t get you around starting a case. You have always got to start a case or start a session. Yes?

Q. On this re-experience process, do I run it until I get 3-D pictures, and track?

A. Yes. Oh, 3-D pictures and back in PT. Back in PT. I’ll give you an example of one of these. Here’s the pc. He is sitting in a terror charge, in a total black freeze, at 1500 AD. One second later, everything went to hell. One second before, everything had gone to hell. And he’s sitting in this split second, at a rest point. Got it? Well, now, what do you think happens when you start asking him about future and past, alternately? He’ll move right off that rest point, won’t he? So this is an explosive, doggoned process. Now, I say you run it until he gets to PT. Some time or other you might find it impossible to get him to PT on the process. You just might. But the experience that has been had with it so far is that it does eventually move him to PT. Now is the time to take him back, at the auditor’s discretion, and have him run that incident in which he was stuck.

By the way, “What part of PT are you willing to experience?” has on several cases exposed the engram necessary to resolve the case. It is the engram he’s sitting in, and it is the one necessary to resolve the case. Yes?

Q. If you leave a process very unflat one afternoon, and come back in the morning and start questioning the guy, and you pick up first of all present time problems. Now supposing that process is the basic of his present time problem of the morning. Are he and you the terminals, the preclear and auditor the two terminals?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you run it that way?

A. Oh, well, if he got a lot of ARC breaks, it would be a good thing to run it this way. That would clean up all the ARC breaks, wouldn’t it?

Now I am going to give you that again on ARC breaks. This is the hottest one to run ARC breaks on. Just pick up the auditor and pick up the pc, as the two people involved in the present time problem. I am glad you brought that up, Joe.

This idea of throwing him back into session after you have ended a session the day before is another point of judgment. Just how do you smoothly get him into it? Usually he has piled up something on top of the engram. There is a process here, which is not really a very good process, but which kicks them out, and it was not given in this ACC. That is Problems of Comparable Magnitude to that Engram, or that Incident. It will actually de-intensify an engram. You should have that as a little panacea.
That is an interesting one to wind up an intensive on. About noon of the last day you all of a sudden realize, “Boy, this man isn’t going to make it.” And you could run a problem of comparable magnitude to that engram and get it keyed out. However, you are better than that, and you will have had it flat by the last day of the last intensive he has, that’s for sure. Any other questions? Don?

Q. Is “recall something” preferred over “recall a time”? I have heard “Recall a time you did something to somebody,” and also “Recall something you did to somebody,” which is slightly different.

A. “Recall a time” is always a superior process, unless the individual is consistently not recalling a time, at which time he is not obeying the auditing command. So you should say, “Recall something you have done to” to somebody who can’t spot something on a time track.

Q. What’s the difference there?

A. You are running really two processes with “Recall a time you did something,” and you are running only one process, “Recall something you have done.”

Q. Can he continue to do that without recalling a time?

A. Yeah. Definitely. Anything else?

“Recall a time,” all by itself—you just sit down and say to a pc, “Recall a time. Thank you. Recall a time. Thank you.” Some interesting things would happen to a case. Time, you see, is the single aberration. Joe?

Q. In running an engram, when you are tagging the engram for the first time, is it possible to peg, say, a 2-ton motivator and a one-pound overt, and that’s the incident?

A. Yes. Because until they get some of the overt flat, the motivator will come off. The right one to run there, by the way, is the overt. You get that overt damn real, and all of a sudden you’ll find the 20-tons have departed down to about 1 0-tons on the motivator. Now they’ll run on comparable lines. Yes.

Q. Couldn’t you have, say, a 20-ton motivator, as he was saying, and twenty one-ton overts tied to the same motivator, rather than one large overt?

A. You could. You could. Nevertheless, you’ll find somebody getting all loused up on this, and best remedy is just to play what overt you find against what motivator you find as the incident. And just keep playing them one against the other, back and forth, back and forth, and eventually the thing will come out right.

There are many remedies, and one is Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on the personnel of the incident. You could take any incident as a PT and run any PT process on the incident. That’s a little rule. I don’t advise you doing it, however, but you can do it. It’s very interesting: “Find something unimportant about that executioner,” is just about the same as, “Find something unimportant about this room.” If you want to get a reality soaring on a pc, just run “Find something unimportant about this room.” And he’ll start this not-is machinery going, you know, and he’ll run it out to some degree, and all of a sudden the room will brighten up. Very interesting.

“Think of something you did to an executioner” would be it, rather than, “Think of something you did to that executioner.” And he will come up with the overt, and he will find out he was the executioner in the same castle for about three lifetimes before he suddenly came back there and got executed. That usually is the way these things compare.

Any other questions? There is a burning question that you should ask, is: “Are we supposed to run these things muzzled?” Now, let me just say this, to do this for me: Let’s cut down the unnecessary yak. And if the pc seems to be ARC breaking at all, you voluntarily muzzle your auditing. You got it? Because what he’s got is an engram of being talked to or being interrogated in some fashion, and everything that he doesn’t consider exactly necessary to the auditing session he resents. So if you find a pc is ARC breaking, you muzzle your session. Any other questions before we break this up?

Thank you very much for your time, I appreciate very much your coming in. I know you had a hard day getting on to a new routine, and you have got auxiliary duties. Several people in the HGC have been split off of administration, and there are other things going on. Latch on to ‘em, get wheeling, but let’s start making theta clears in this HGC and just make nothing else but theta clears. I have given you a pattern here that was thoroughly tested out in the 21st American ACC, and you can make theta clears—there’s no great difficulty to it. Thank you very much.

	                  						L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ng.rd.lh
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 OCTOBER AD9
HCO Secs
Franchise Holders
D of P Central Orgs	   
AN EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS

Recall Processes have always worked well. But it has been hard to get the most fundamental processes that would reach the lowest cases.

Here are some Recall Processes that work way down South of the Auks:

COMM RECALL PROCESS:

       	“Recall a Communication”

KNOW MYSTERY RECALL PROCESSES:

       	“Recall an Unconsciousness”
       	“Recall Waiting”
       	“Recall a Mystery”
       	“Recall Sex”
       	“Recall Eating” (or a variation
       	“Recall Food”)
       	“Recall a Symbol”
       	“Recall Thinking”
       	“Recall an Effort”
       	“Recall an Emotion”
       	“Recall Looking”
       	“Recall Knowing”
       	“Recall Not-Knowing”

These are very good, especially on bad off cases. They all work.

When the lowest seems flat one can go to one above. Probably there is an E-Meter tellingness that denotes flatness. I’m working on this and will have the gen soon.

The earliest experiments of this were on “Recall a Mystery” as a method of raising IQ and the pc was spouting poetry he’d “forgotten”.

There are many possible versions of these simplicities as one can run them on terminals and significances. Also, remember that these things (Recall Processes) take the pc out of PT and put him back in. You stop one with the PC back in PT. The Comm bridge to be used on this process is: “When you next get an answer close to present time we will end this process if it is all right with you.” Then don’t go on for an hour or two, catch it with 8 or 10 commands by seeing the pc is doing a short cycle at the time and has started back up.

“Recall Exhaustion” is a simple, very effective version of a work process.

“Recall Creating” is a good way, apparently, to mop up Step 6 flubs.

Therefore you can use these processes in the HGC or you can, when it is okayed, use them in training. These are individual processes and not co-audit. As a note on co-audit, the process, the only basic affinity process, “What would you like to confront,” could cut your co-audit attendance losses. It is now allowed, having been carefully tested. Man, do they get interested in cases and hence into session. This is a fine individual process for pcs that “have no reality on pictures”.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 FEBRUARY 1959

HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING
OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES

STARTING A CASE: BEGIN EVERY SESSION AS FOLLOWS WITH THESE RUDIMENTS.
	USE RUDIMENTS. FIND THE AUDITOR, FIND THE PC, FIND THE AUDITING ROOM.
	ESTABLISH A GOAL FOR THE SESSION. ASK FOR PRESENT TIME PROBLEM.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM:

If PTP exists then run it as follows and in no other way. Do not yak around about it. Just ask if there is one, see if one registers on the meter. On the PT PROBLEM THAT REGISTERS ON THE METER (not some other one) do the following.

Ask for and write down all the persons connected with this problem. That problem includes the preclear. On each of these persons, one after the other, beginning with the one most real to the pc, run this:

“Think of something you have done to (selected person).” “Think of something you have withheld from (selected person).”

These commands are run one after the other until the selected person chosen is somewhat flat. (Pc begins to repeat things he has recalled before.)

Do this to each person involved in the problem.

PT PROBLEMS WERE CUT OUT OF HGC BECAUSE AUDITORS BURNED UP HALF AN INTENSIVE ON THEM. A PT PROBLEM NEVER REQUIRES MORE THAN A COUPLE OF HOURS TO FLATTEN. NO “WHEN” IS USED WITH PT PROBLEM BY SELECTED PERSONS.

USE RUDIMENTS AND CHECK PT PROBLEM EACH SESSION AND HANDLE AS ABOVE.

DYNAMIC STRAIGHT WIRE:

Do a survey, one time on the pc, not every session, to discover any errors in their dynamics. This is done with an E-Meter. On pcs not familiar with Sci. terms use the following words: Self, sex, family, children, groups, mankind, the animal kingdom, birds, beasts, fish, vegetables, trees, growing things, matter, energy, space, time, spirits, souls, gods, God. Assess with this question only, “Tell me something that would represent (each of the above, one after the other).” When one changes the pattern of the needle action or when it is definitely balmy, write it down. When list is completed, take those items written down and run:

“Think of something you have done to (selected terminal you wrote down).”
“Think of something you have withheld from (selected terminal, same one).”

Run these questions on each, one after the other, until pc seems flat.
IF NO DAFFY TERMINALS ARE FOUND ON SURVEY, SURVEY IT ALL AGAIN. IF NONE ARE FOUND THIS SECOND TIME, SKIP THIS PROCESS.

DO THIS ONLY ONCE PER AUDITOR PER PC.

PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE:

This process goes rapidly into engrams but can be continued even if engrams are contacted.

Run these two questions one after the other, one time per each.

“What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” 
“What part of the future would you be willing to experience?”

KEEP AN ACCURATE RECORD OF ANY ENGRAMS CONTACTED. WHEN ENGRAMS PERSIST IN THE PC’S VIEW, CAREFULLY SPOT THEM IN TIME FOR HIM.

ENGRAM RUNNING:

Find the engram necessary to resolve the case. ONCE YOU HAVE CHOSEN IT AND HAVE BEGUN TO RUN IT, BE SURE YOU HAVE THE MOTIVATOR AND THE OVERT AND THEN DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DEPART FROM THAT INCIDENT TO RUN ANOTHER THAT “DROPS BETTER” OR COMES UP. IN OTHER WORDS ONCE YOU HAVE FOUND AN INCIDENT STAY ON IT UNTIL IT IS FLAT.

NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE:

When you have flattened an engram thoroughly with all five commands gone over twice, run Not-Is Straight Wire between incidents. In other words, flatten an engram, then run Not-Is Straight Wire, get that a bit flat and locate and run the next incident.

Selected Person Overt Withhold, and General Overt and Withhold can be run on a pc only if they are biting. This is also true of Not-Is Straight Wire.

								L. RON HUBBARD 

LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 APRIL AD 8
Issue II

A PAIR OF PROCESSES

Now and then I overhaul some old process once in use and see what can be done to make it work.

Op Pro by Dup and Forgetting are a pair that recently showed up as having a possible specific value—i.e. to create a specific effect upon a specific difficulty.

Evidently Admiration and Critical are a dichotomy. Maxine Kozak suggests that Duplication is Admiration. From this I looked over Critical on the APA (OCA) profile and saw that the low critical might be influenced by Op Pro by Dup. A test should be made of this.

The other process is less nebulous in action. The specific for a bad memory is Forgetting run in Brackets. You will ordinarily find an automaticity of forgetting when you ask “Recall something you wouldn’t mind other people forgetting.” This is a “bad memory”. Nothing like a good conscience to retain a good memory.

The commands of Forgetting would be a 6-way bracket.

Recall (or think of) something you wouldn’t mind

1. 	Forgetting yourself
2. 	Another person forgetting
3. 	Forgetting about another
4. 	Another forgetting about you
5. 	Other people forgetting
6. 	Another person forgetting about another person.

Each command is cleared. The commands are run in sequence rather than repetition.

This is a low scale process. Goes lower than “Not know” but graduates into it.

This is a basic on unknowns and fields of whatever kind.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:bt.cden 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 MARCH 1960
Fran Hldrs
Central Orgs

EXPANSION OF OT-3A PROCEDURE, STEP TWO
HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

Step Two of OT-3A Procedure is as follows:

Run Cause ARC Straight Wire to give pc a win on getting audited. Once each over and over. End process only with pc in present time on cycle.

“Recall communicating to someone” 
“Recall a time you felt affinity for someone” 
“Recall something that is really real to you”

Now people do have time tracks, the time span of the individual from beingness to present time on which lies the sequence of events of his total existence. And when the preclear is in session and is being run on a recall type process, he, with his attention, goes up and down this time track. He may recall things only from this life or he may recall things from his whole past track; but however that may be, his attention cycles from early on the track to present time or from present time to early on the track to present time. This is known as the cycle aspect of recall type processes. In ending such a process, it is of utmost importance that the auditor end it with the preclear in present time on the cycle. The auditor wants to watch ending the process when the preclear has not made a smooth cycle into present time, but has made a big jump from way back in the past to present time. In such a case, the preclear has really bounced out of the past incident into present time, and it is only an apparency that the preclear is in present time.

So when ending such a process, the auditor must exert caution to be certain the preclear is in present time. Being left with one’s attention back on the track is not a comfortable sensation and sometimes can be quite painful, despite any justification offered by an auditor who himself has no reality on the time track, and I hope there are no such auditors.

With Cause ARC Straight Wire, the auditor must forget his fastidiousness about ending the process precisely so on the last command, “Recall something that is really real to you.” He ends the process, no matter on what command of Cause ARC Straight Wire, when the preclear’s attention has come into or close to present time, close to present time being the last day or two.

In ending such a process the communication bridge used is as follows: “The next time you come close to present time I am going to end this process.” He continues to give the commands using the question, “When was that?”, after each answer the preclear gives and before the acknowledgement. When the preclear gives an answer close to present time, he says, “That was the last command of that process; end of process.” Bang. With processes that cycle, there can be no communication bridges like, “If it’s alright with you in a few more commands I am going to end this process.” It could take fifty more commands until the preclear is close to present time; and by that time, the preclear has entirely forgotten that there ever was any intention on the auditor’s part to end the process as it seems to him that the auditor must have changed his mind and decided to run the process longer than a few commands.

An auditor should not get upset with a preclear when the auditor, in an effort to get the preclear to give an answer right in present time, starts the preclear back down the time track again. Remember it is the auditor who calls the shot, and if he misses, then he had better learn to gage it a bit better. A good auditor allows himself time in which to properly end a process.

Now two further cyclic processes which can be seen under Step Two of OT-3A are:

1. 	“What would it be all right for you to make forgotten?” 
2. 	“What would you permit to have happen again?”

These are called Cause Elementary Straight Wire and are two separate processes which are not to be run alternately.

The first process puts the preclear at cause over forgetting, and the second process rehabilitates the preclear’s ability to duplicate. These are both terrific processes in turning on recall in the preclear. All processes under Step Two are unlimited, with the “make forgotten” one only slightly less unlimited as it has a bit of a tendency to run down havingness. Havingness, however, should be checked upon in each session and run as needed.

The auditor should not consider Step Two of OT-3A lightly. These processes are, in reality, very potent and will certainly do more for CCH-step cases than anything we have had before. An example of this is how preclears broke through from psychosis to neurosis to sanity with the simplified version of ARC Straight Wire as given in the original Self Analysis. So use these processes and win faster.

Note: On second thoughts for purposes of differentiation, the first process, “What would it be all right for you to make forgotten?”, should be termed Cause Elementary Straight Wire; and the second process, “What would you permit to have happen again?”, shall be called Duplication Straight Wire. These two processes were first used in early Advanced Clinical Courses in Phoenix and were called at that time “Elementary Straightwire”. The commands of “Elementary Straightwire” as given in Dianetics 1955 were: “Give me something you wouldn’t mind remembering” and “Give me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting”. As the ability to recall depends upon the mechanisms of forgetting and remembering (the ability to duplicate) you can easily understand the importance of these in Step Two of OT-3A.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PROCESSING SECTION

Exerpted from the Book: Self Analysis

Here begin the lists of questions by which the individual can explore his past and improve his reactions toward life. Dianetically speaking, this self-processing section could be called “straight wire”. It is not “auto processing”. The reader is actually being processed by the author.

In the full use of Dianetics these questions could be considered as preparatory to co-auditing. The auditor is assisted by these lists in that they open a case for the running of engramsand secondaries and raise the pre-clear on a tone scale. These question sections, so far as is known at this time, will not run out engrams and secondaries as such but will desensitize them to a marked extent with a consequent improvement in the mental and physical being of the individual.

An auditor, as the practitioner in Dianetics is called since he both listens and computes, can use these questions during a session with a pre-clear. Further, two people can work with these sections—one of them asking the questions of another who answers—or both of them reading the questions and both of them attempting to get a recall on such an incident as that one called for.

These lists are used repetitively; that is to say the individual goes over them again and again. There is no finite period to the work. The reason the recall of these questions is important is that they reveal and discharge locks which have formed above the basic engrams (moments of physical pain and unconsciousness) and secondaries (moments of acute loss as death of a loved one). The discharging of these locks renders engrams and secondaries relatively ineffective. A full dianetic clearing of the individual’s engrams and secondaries gives the highest possible attainable results, but these questions provide self-processing which prepares the case for such an action and are in themselves highly beneficial.

In the process of using these questions the pre-clear may discover many manifestations in himself. He may experience

 considerable emotional release. He may become angry at the recollection of some of the things which have happened to him and he may even feel like crying over some of the losses he has sustained and indeed may very well cry. However, the intent of these questions is not to focus the self-processor’s attention upon the bad things which have happened to him but upon the good things which have taken place in his life. A concentration upon these happier circumstances tends to discharge the unhappy circumstances and render them far less forceful.

These questions are based upon the dianetic discoveries, axioms and postulates which have done so much toward amplifying the understanding of people, concerning the nature of existence and their roles in it. Life can be considered to have as its fundamental purpose Survival in the material universe. When one closely examines Survival he discovers that the concept embraces all the activities of an individual, a group, a state, life itself or the material universe.

The material universe is composed of matter, energy, space and time. Life can then be considered to be engaged upon the conquest of matter, energy, space and time, induding other life forms, organisms and persons. If an organism or a group has been successful in handling other organisms, groups and the material universe, its survival potential is very great. If the organism has been unsuccessful, its survival potential is lower. Its moments of success, as its moments of pain, are highly charged. It is possible, by certain processes, to remove the charge from painful incidents. One of the ways of doing this is to lay the stress and concentration of the organism upon the tirnes it has been successful in surviving.
With the invention of language man brought upon himself an unexpected source of aberration. While language itself is very far from the whole reason an organism is less successful than it might be, our current social order lays undue stress upon language. Words are only symbols which represent actions. A child learns these actions very early and learns the symbols which represent the actions. Later on he begins to mistake the action for the symbol and begins to believe the words themselves have force and power which they do not. If you believe that words have force and power, hold your hand in front of your mouth and say a few words. You will see how negligible is the force of utterance, no matter what words you use. Underlying this mistaken emphasis on the force of words lie actual physical actions of which the words are the symbols. The main point then is that words are not powerful but actions are. For example, when an individual has been told to hold still he obeys simply because he has experienced earlier in his life the action of being made to hold still by physical force.

For many reasons it is important for the organism to increase its mobility. The discovery of all the times the organism has been told to hold still and has obeyed has some therapeutic value but the discovery of actual incidents when the organism has been physically forced to remain motionless is much more important in restoring the mobility of the organism.

These lists, then, tend to devaluate the importance of language. This is only one of their many functions but an important one; therefore, the reading of these lists should direct the individual to moments action took place, not when somebody said it took place. Just as hearsay evidence is not admissible in a court of law, so are words and phrases given to the individual by others inadmissible in self-processing. For instance, when one is asked for a time when somebody went away one should not try to recall the time when somebody said somebody went away or the statement that somebody was going away, but the actual physical departure, regardless of what was said.

You will find that words are communicated through the physical universe to other organisms. Sounds, for instance, originate within the organism, are translated into sound waves and reach the other person as sound waves. The written word is made into symbols of ink which are then seen, the other physical fact, of light, byanother organism. Whereas theremayvery well be such things as ESP, it is not aberrative.

There are many perceptions, which is to say channels, through which one can contact the physical universe. You are aware of the physical universe because of sight, sound, mouth and other message systems. Therefore, each time you are asked to recall an incident of a certain kind you will be asked, after you have recalled it, to pay attention to a certain sense channel which was present during the time when you experienced the incident. The circular disc is provided for this purpose. You will notice the disc has two sides. 

The perceptions or sense messages listed on one side are different from those on the other side. As you read the questions one after the other you should read them through a s]ot provided in the disc. Going to the next question you should rotate the slot once counterclockwise for each new question. This will give you a new perception. For instance the question may pertain to a time somebody went away from you. You will recall a time when this occurred, selecting the moment of actual physical departure. Undoubtedly you will get some perception of the scene and you may even get a very full perception of the scene. Many people see, feel, hear and otherwise perceive memories when they recall them. Some people are too occluded. These lists wipe away occlusion. As you recall the person walking away from you then, you are not supposed to recall merely the concept that somebody had walked away, but the moment when they actually did and get as many perceptions as possible of them doing so. The disc which overlies this question will have uppermost at random one particular perception. That perception may be sound—thus you should attempt to recover whatever sounds were present when this individual walked away as the particular emphasis of perception. If you are unable to recover the sounds as such, hearing them again, at least recover the concept °S what they rnay have been.

If you will examine this disc, you will find that it lists six perceptions with which you have contacted the physical universe. Actually there are many more of these than six.

When the word “emotion” is uppermost above a question ffler you have recalled the incident suggested by the question, you then try to recall in particular and feel again, if possible, the emotion you felt at the time. When the next question is addressed the disc is rotated one turn counterclockwise. You will find that “loudness” is now uppermost. You should get an incident in recall suggested by the question and having perceived the incident you should then give your attention in particular to the loudness of the various sounds in the incident.

Going to the next question, you should rotate the disc once more counterclockwise. You will find that “body position” is now uppermost. You should read the question and recall some incident it suggests, perceive it as well as you possibly can and then give particular attention to the position your own body was in at the time the incident occurred. Going to the next question  and rotating the disc once more you will find that “sound” is now uppermost. You should recall the incident the question calls for and then give particular attention to the sounds in that incident. Going to the next question and rotating the disc once more, you will &d that “weight” is uppermost. In the incident you recall you should then give attention to the heaviness of things, including the pull of gravity on yourself and the weight of anything you may actually be supporting in the incident such as your clothes, a ball or any other thing which you are actually holding at the time the incident occurred.

Rotating the disc once more to the next question on the list, you will find that “personal motion” falls uppermost. When you have answered the question then you should give attention to the motion which you yourself were undertaking at the time the incident occurred.

Every time you go to a new page you should turn the disc upside down. You will find here a new set of perceptics. These, of course, are applied in such a way that when you go over the list a second time you will probably not have the same perception, as these things fall at random. Thus while you might have answered a question the first time about somebody coming towards you with attention to sound called for by the disc, the next time you reach this question, on going over the list again, you may find “emotion” uppermost. You should then contact any and all emotion on the second time, whereas you contacted the sound the first time. You will find on the reverse side of the disc the perceptions of sight, srnell, touch, color, tone and external motion. Sight is what you actually saw at the time. A person whose perceptions are in good condition will see again what he has seen before when the incident actually occurred. Thus sight calls for what was seen while the incident called for was taking place. Smell requests the individual to recall any and all odors which were present during the scene he is recalling. Touch requests the recall of anything the individual was actually touching at the time with the sensation of touch, including pressure. One is always in contact with the material world in terms of touch, even if only the touch of his feet on the ground or the feel of his clothes upon him. The perception of color, when uppermost, should cause the individual to try to perceive again the color which was contained in the scene called for

When tone is requested the individual should attempt to contact the quality of the sound present when the scene occurred. When external motion is uppermost the individual, in recalling the incident called for by the question, should attempt to perceive in the incident recalled the movement contained in the incident, the motion of other people or objects or of energy.

As one goes over these questions then with the disc, he is exploring his own life and during that exploration is attempting to call into view with the highest possible level of reality those things he has perceived. The immediate result is a heightening of perception of his present-time world. Another result is a strengthening of his memory. Yet another result is the rearrangement and reevaluation of things which have happened to him. Another and more mechanical and fundamental result is the deintensification of unpleasant experiences—like bringing them into the light. For a while one may feel it is better to forget unpleasant things. Forgotten, they have more force and destructive quality than when examined.

The individual will find himself, as he repeatedly uses a list, getting earlier and earlier incidents. It is not impossible for him to remember straight back to the earliest beginnings of his life, much less his infancy.

Again, and it cannot be emphasized too strongly, these questions are requesting actual physical actions, not statements about physical actions. It is perfectly legitimate to recall scenes which have been seen in the movies or read about in books, but when one recalls such scenes one should have full awareness, in the case of the movies, of the screen and the seat and where the incident is taking place and when. In the case of books one should get not the scene the author would like the reader to see but the actual scene of reading and the recall should be recaptured in terms of print and sitting in a chair, not in terms of imagining.

There is a great deal of technology out of sight back of these questions. All that is important is that this operation, continued persistently, going over one list and then another and recalling the things required, considerably improves the individual’s thinking and acting abilities and his physical well being and considerably enhances his relationship with his present environment.

You will find the very last list is named the “End of Session List.” This means that after you have worked a list, or worked as long as you desire to, during any one period of self-processing, you should turn to the “End of Session List” and answer the questions as a routine operation.

You will also find a list entitled “When Uncomfortable”, which is placed next to the last in the book. If you find during a session of self-processing that you grow considerably uncomfortable or unhappy, you should then turn to the “When Uncomfortable” list. Using it should restore your good spirit swiftly.

If you find it is extremely difficult to recall any one question in these lists, simply pass over it and go to the next question. If you find you are having difficulty in answering any of these lists you will do better if some friend reads them to you.

If undergoing self-processing makes you extremely unhappy it is probable that your case should be given the attention of a dianetic auditor until such time as you are capable of handling this matter for yourself.

You can go over a list many times before going on to the next list or you can continue on through all of the lists consecutively without repeating any. You will probably find that going over each list many times before going on to the next will work better than going through the book consecutively. You will notice that after you have been over the same memory several times, even though it be an unpleasant one, that it will cease to have any effect upon you. This means its intensity is decreasing and that the energy which it contained and which was affecting your present time life is dissipating. If you can remember several incidents of the same kind, do so; and if they are troublesome to you, simply go over the things you remembered once more, one after the other, and then again. This, dianetically speaking, is called repetitive straight wire. It de-intensifies unpleasant memories. However, this list is aimed toward the recall of pleasant incidents. Pleasant incidents do not de-intensify as unpleasant ones do but, underneath the level of attention, deintensify unpleasant incidents when the pleasant incident is recalled.

All you really need to work these lists is to know that actions, not words, are required and that the disc should be used to give you the particular kind of recall you should have on the recollection called for. If you lose the disc you will note that the bottom of the page has a list of the perceptions for your reference. When using the bottom-of-the-page list you should merely take the recalls,.the perceptions, consecutively one after the other and use them the same way you used them with the disc.
Don’t simply answer questions “Yes” or “No”. Select an actual moment in your life called for by the question. Try to re-sense that moment with the perceptic called for on the disc.

If going over the questions makes you unhappy, simply continue with the list you are working, over and over. The unhappiness should “wear out” after unhappy incidents are recalled many times. The feeling will turn to one of relief.

Some people are frightened at the idea of persevering with these questions. Certainly you’ve got more nerve than that. The worst they could do is kill you.

Don’t be surprised if you feel sleepy after using some of these questions. The sleepiness is only a symptom of relaxing. The very least the book can do for you is replace your sedatives!

If, while answering these questions, you begin to yawn, that is good. Yawning is a release of former periods of unconsciousness. You may yawn so much the tears come out of your eyes. That is progress.

Should you feel very groggy while answering these questions, that is only “boil-off “, the manifestation of former periods of unconsciousness boiling off. Simply persist in recalling the incident or others like it and the feeling wiU pass away, leaving you more alert than before. If you interrupt this “boil-off” and stop your session, you may feel cross or irritable. This grogginess occasionally amounts to nearly complete unconsciousness, but it always goes away. That unconsciousness was what was keeping you from being high on the tone scale.

Occasionally vague or even sharp pains may turn on and off as you are answering questions. Don’t try to find out where they came from. They will go away if you persist with these questions. Simply ignore them. They are the ghosts of what they used to call psychosomatic ills, former injuries restirnulated.

An individual is suppressed by these deposits of past pain and unconsciousness. Self Analysis makes such past moments pass away and de-intensify at least partially, without your having tofind out what was in them.

A full description of these manifestations and their causes occurs in SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, the popular text on Dianetics, which you will find on the book list in the back of this book.

Use Lists Many Times. Try for the earliest incident you can get for each question.

LIST 1

General Incidents

The purpose of this list is to give you practice in recalling things. Use the disc provided in the back of the book and look at the beginning of this section for instructions as to how this list is to be used.

Can you recall a time when:

1. 	You were happy.

2. 	You had just finished constructing something.

3. 	Life was cheerful.

4. 	Somebody had given you something.

5. 	You ate something good.

6. 	You had a friend.

7. 	You felt energetic.

8. 	Somebody was waiting for you.

9.	You drove fast.

10. 	You saw something you liked. 

11. 	You acquired something good. 

12. 	You threw away something bad. 

13. 	You kissed somebody you liked. 

14. 	You laughed at a joke. 

15. 	You received money. 

16. 	You felt young. 

17. 	You liked life. 

18. 	You played a game. 

19.	You bested something dangerous. 

20.	You acquired an animal. 

21.	Somebody thought you were important. 

22.	You enjoyed a good loaf. 

23.	You chased something bad. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

24.	You were enthusiastic. 

25. 	You enjoyed life. 

26. 	You went fast. 

27. 	You owned something. 

28. 	You felt strong. 

29. 	Somebody departed. 

30. 	Somebody helped you.

31. 	You gathered something good. 

32. 	You measured something. 

33. 	You took a pleasant journey.

34. 	You turned on a light. 

35. 	You heard some good music. 

36. 	You controlled something. 

37. 	You destroyed something. 

38. 	You mastered something. 

39. 	You were lucky. 

40. 	You felt peaceful. 

41. 	You saw a pretty scene. 

42. 	You poured something good. 

43. 	You acquired something that was scarce. 

44. 	You made an enemy scream. 

45. 	You had a pleasant seat. 

46. 	You handled something well. (actual physical handling) 

47. 	You moved something. 

48. 	You watched something fast. 

49. 	You were together with friends. 

50. 	You occupied a good space. 

51. 	Somebody loved you. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

52. 	You enjoyed somebody.

53. 	You invented something.

54. 	You harnessed some energy. 

55. 	You killed a bug. 

56. 	You pocketed something. 

57. 	You made progress. 

58. 	You walked. 

59. 	You saved something. 

60. 	You stopped a machine. 

61. 	You started a machine. 

62. 	You had a good sleep. 

62. 	You stopped a thief. 

64. 	You stood under something. 

65. 	You started a fire. 

66. 	You went upstairs. 

67. 	You were warm. 

68. 	You went riding. 

69. 	You were adroit. 

70. 	You swam.

71. 	You stood your ground. 

72. 	You lived well. 

73. 	You were respected. 

74. 	You won a race. 

75. 	You ate well. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 2

Time Orientation

This list is intended to aid your general sense of time as applied to periods in your life. Everyone has a full recording of everything that happened to him during his life. It may be that he cannot immediately recall certain periods. These periods are said to be occluded. Working with these lists in general, such occluded periods will gradually disappear when one’s life is in recall to the betterment of his mental and physical well being and his perception of his present-time environment- In Dianetics it is considered that everyone has a “time track”. Everything which an individual has perceived throughout his life is recorded on this “time track” from the beginning to the end. It is dangerous to have occlusions since the data in the occluded area becomes compulsive and causes less than optimum conduct. This list is intended to straighten out the track in general. Do not be dismayed if you cannot recall the actual instant of the memory. Get the memory first. If you can answer the remaining questions,that is all to the good.

Can you recall an incident which happened:

1. 	A long time ago. (the year? the month? the hour ?) 

2. 	Yesterday. (the hour? the date?.) 

3. 	Last month. (position of the sun?.) 

4. 	When you were very small. (clothes people wore? position of sun?.) 

5. 	When you were half your present size. (the sizes of others at that time ?.)

6. 	When you were a third your present weight. (position of the sun?.)

7. 	When your mother looked younger. (her clothes ? position of the sun?.) 

8. 	When you felt agile. (the year? the hour?.) 

9. 	Last Christmas. (time of day ?) 

10. 	Your fifth Christmas. (clothing of others?.) 

11. 	Your eighth birthday. (furniture?.)  

12. 	A birthday. (the appearance of others ? year ? position of sun?.) 

13. 	This day last year. (the house you lived in? the date? the season?.)

14. 	At noon today. 

15. 	At a banquet. (clothing of people present?) 

16. 	At a marriage. (year? season ?) 

17. 	At a birth. (season?.) 

18. 	On a date with someone. (hairdo ?) 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

19. 	About a clock. (position of the sun?.) 

20. 	About a wrist watch. (motion of second hand?) 

21. 	With an animal. (when he was smaller ?) 

Can you recall incidents which compare: 

1. 	Clothing today and clothing when you were small. 

2. 	Hairdo today and hairdo when you were in your teens.

3. 	Something which is now old when it was new.

4. 	Something which was small which is now big.

5. 	Something which is now old when it was young. 

6. 	The way the sun shines in the morning and in the afternoon. 

7. 	Winter with summer. 

8. 	Spring with winter. 

9. 	Fall with spring. 

10. 	Sunrise with sunset. 

11. 	A morning shadow and an evening shadow. 

12. 	Clothing now old when it was new. 

13. 	A house now standing where no house was. 

14. 	An open space which is now cut up. 

15. 	A long time and a short time. 

16. 	A cigarette when it was lighted and when it was put out. 

17. 	The beginning and the end of a race. 

18. 	Bedtime and getting up. 

19. 	School in the morning and getting out in the afternoon. 

20. 	Your size now and when you were little. 

21. 	A cloudy day and a sun- shiny day. 

22. 	Stormy weather and rainy weather. 

23. 	Something hot and when it got cold. 

24. 	Something young and something old. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

25. 	A fast heartbeat and a slow heartbeat. 

26. 	When you were over- heated and when you were chilly. 

27. 	When you had lots of room and when you had little room. 

28. 	When the light was bright and when it was dim. 

29. 	When a fire burnt bright and when it down. 

30. 	An object half built when it was started. 

31. 	The same person when he was big with when was small. 

32. 	When you felt little when you felt grown 

33. 	Yesterday morning this morning. 

34. 	A complete calendar and when it had its leaves torn off. 

35. 	A stopped clock and a running clock. 

36. 	The sun’s motion and the moon’s motion.

37. 	When you felt tired and when you felt energetic. 

38. 	Cars then with cars now. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 3

Orientation of Senses

This list is arranged especially to call your attention to the existence of many of the channels by which you perceive yourself and the physical universe about you. While each of the questions listed pertains to a specific sense channel such as light or sound, the disc could still be used, for what is required are specific moments when you were using various senses and any specific moment includes many other sense messages than the one which is called for. Therefore, use the disc as in any other questions and after you have recalled a specific incident called for in the question then try recalling it with specific attention to that sense which happened to be uppermost on the disc at that time. 

Time Sense

Anyone has a sense of time. This sense is apt to become aberrated. The existence of clocks at every hand seems to tell us that we need mechanical assistance in knowing what time it is. The first person that had an aberrated or dearranged time sense made the first clock desirable—but only for him. Clocks and calendars are artificial symbols representing time which is an actual commodity and which can be sensed directly by the individual. This section and almost every other section in these lists rehabilitates the sense of time. Time in most people’s minds is confused with space. The words which describe time are also the words which describe space, which shows that man has an indifferent attention for his time sense. The organism measures time in many ways, but mostly in terms of motion and growth or decay. Change is the most striking symbol of time passage, but there is a direct sense of time which everyone has although it may be occluded by a society which, using clocks and calendars, seems to invalidate the fact that it exists no confusion of any kind about time. 

Can you recall a time when:

1. 	It was very late. 

2. 	You were early. 

3. 	You had to wait. 

4. 	You had to stand for some time supporting a weight. 

5. 	You went very fast. 

6. 	You covered a great deal of space. 

7. 	You used a lot of time (when you really did, not when somebody said you did).
 
8. 	An object ran down (not a clock). 

9. 	A long length of space.

10. 	A short length of space. 

11. 	An object moving. 

12. 	An animal moving. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

13. 	A clock hand moving. 

14. 	A round object. 

15. 	An object near an object. 

16. 	A lightning bolt. 

17. 	Breaking a watch. (did time stop’?) 

18. 	A good time. 

19. 	You were too late. 

( Additional questions are in the second half of LIST 2 ) 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Sight

There are several portions of the sense channel called sight. Light waves, coming from the sun, moon, stars, or artificial sources, reflect from objects and the light waves enter the eyes and are recorded as present time action or as memory for future reference. Light sources are also recorded. This is the sense perception called sight. It has subdivisions. First of these might be considered to be motion, wherein sight depends upon a time span to record a continuously changing picture. While one may see motion in present time, various aberrations of sight may cause him to recall only still pictures. Nevertheless, all the motions are still recorded and can be recalled as moving pictures. In this way all other senses have a dependence upon time in order to bring in the message of motion, since motion is also recorded by the other perceptions. More particularly, part of sight is color perception. There are people who are color blind in present time; that is to say, they can see color but are unable to perceive differences of shading. There are people who may see color in present time but in trying to recall what they have seen, recall only in black and white. This would be recall color blind- ness. The color is fully deleted. It is an aberration easily re- medied when one recalls things he has seen in color as black and white or as still pictures. 

Another part of sight is depth perception. Depth perception is observed in two ways. One is by seeing the difference in size of objects and so having a conception of the fact that one is further back than another or that the object itself is at a distance and the other is a “stereoscopic” effect occasioned by the fact is again remediable. An individual who could not perceive motion in present time and who additionally could not perceive color or depth would be a very bad risk as a driver; almost as bad is that individual who cannot recall what he has seen; depth perception in present time and yet, in recall, see pictures flat and without depth perception. This lack of depth perception is again remediable. An individual who could not perceive motion in present time and who additionally could not perceive color or depth would be a very bad risk as a driver; almost as bad is that individual who cannot recall what he has seen; or if he can recall it, cannot do so with depth perception, full color and motion. This part of this list is devoted to giving you a better insight into sight. All these perceptics are exercised over and over by these lists in general. If you cannot immediately see in recall what you have looked at some other time simply try to get a concept of how things looked at specific times.

Can you recall a sight which was:
1. 	Very bright. 
2. 	Dark. 
3. 	Green. 
4. 	Vast. 
5. 	Moving. 
6. 	Flat

7. 	Deep

8. 	Colorful. 

9. 	Swift. 

10. 	Slow. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

11. 	Pleasant. 

12. 	Desirable. 

13. 	Pretty. 

14. 	Rare. 

15. 	Remarkable. 

16. 	Confused. 

17. 	Mysterious. 

18. 	Lazy. 

19. 	Warm. 

20. 	Cheerful. 

21. 	Nearly invisible. 

22. 	Blurred. 

23. 	Sharply defined. 

24. 	Lovable. 

25. 	Passionate. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion
Relative Sizes

The recognition of one’s size in relationship to the scene in which he finds himself and the objects and organisms of that scene is, in itself, a sense message. It is particularly trying on children, and undoubtedly was on you when you were a child, to be surrounded with objects which are so large. When one is actually getting a good recall on a childhood incident he is quite often startled to see how big things appeared to him and how large were those giants, the adults, with which he was surrounded. The feeling of being small in the vicinity of large objects sometimes produces the feeling of inadequacy. It is even said that people who are smaller than the average feel less secure in their environment. This evidently stems from the fact that their grown up size has not reached the average and thus the feeling of smallness and inadequacy during childhood is in constant restimulation. It is not because the person, though smaller, is really inadequate. In such a way people who are taller than the average become aware of the fact, mostly because people smaller than themselves find ways and means of nullifying them because of their size. The perception of relative size is therefore an important perception to rehabilitate and a person who is larger than others on the average would do well to change the reading disc with which he is working these questions so that the word “loudness” on the disc is marked out and “relative size” is substituted. 

Can you recall a time when:

1. 	You were bigger than an animal. 
2. 	You were smaller than an object. 
3. 	You were bigger than a person. 
4. 	You were smaller than a person. 
5. 	Things looked little to you. 
6. 	Things looked big to you. 
7. 	You were in a vast space. 
8. 	You looked at the stars. 
9. 	You were dwarfed by an object.
10. 	You saw a giant. 
11. 	You scared somebody.
12. 	Somebody waited on you. 
13. 	You chased somebody.
14. 	You licked a larger boy.
15. 	Furniture was too small for you. 
16. 	A bed was too small for you. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

17. 	A bed was too big for you. 
18. 	A hat didn’t fit. 
19. 	You had to be polite. 
20. 	You bullied somebody. 
21. 	Your clothes were too large. 
22. 	Your clothes were too small. 
23. 	The vehicle was too large. 
24. 	The vehicle was too small. 
25. 	A space was too big. 
26. 	A table was too big. 
27. 	Your arm was too big. 
28. 	A cook was small. 
29. 	You could reach something above you. 
30. 	A ball was too small. 
31. 	A daughter was smaller. 
32. 	A desk was too small. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Can you recall:
33. 	A big fork. 
34. 	A small kettle. 
36. 	A small fish. 
37. 	A little flower. 
38. 	A small doctor.
39. 	A tiny dog. 
40. 	A small man. 
41. 	A little child. 
42. 	A small cat. 
43. 	A little house. 
44. 	A small machine. 
45. 	Short legs. 
46. 	A small face. 
47. 	A small place. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Sound

Sound consists of the perception of waves emanating from moving objects. An object moves rapidly or slowly, and sets into vibration the air in its vicinity which pulses. When these pulses strike the eardrum they set into motion the individual’s sound recording mechanism and the sound is registered. Sound is absent in a vacuum and is actually merely a force wave. Sound in too great a volume or too discordant can be physically painful, just as light in too great a quantity can hurt the eyes. However, the amount of nervousness occasioned by sound, as by light, is mainly an aberration and it is not warranted, since the sound itself is not ordinarily damaging, and there are few incidents in anyone’s life when a sound has had enough physical force to be physically damaging. Apprehension and anxiety about the physical universe and other persons can, however, cause the individual to be nervous about sound, as it is one of the most reliable warning mechanisms; but starting at every sound in a civilized environment, being afraid of voices of others, or even traffic noises is foolish, since men rarely live a tooth-and-claw existence which warrants such attention. As sound becomes intermingled with past pain, the individual mis- takes the moment and time he is hearing the sound, and so may associate it, as he may with other perceptics, with past pain. These lists permit an individual to rehabilitate his skill in telling the difference between one time and another or one situation . another. 

Sound has several parts. The first is pitch. This is the number of vibrations per unit of time of any object from which sound, coming. The second is quality or tone which is simply the difference between a jagged or ragged sound wave and smooth sound wave as in a musical note. The third is volume which merely means the force of the sound wave, its loudness or quietness. 

Rhythm is actually a part of the time sense, but is also ability to tell the spaces between sound waves which are pulse regularly, as in the beating of a drum. 

Many people have what is called extended hearing, which is say they have too high an alertness to sounds. This accompanies quite ordinarily, a general fear of the environment or the people in it. There is also deafness by which the individual simply shuts out sounds. Some deafness is, of course, occasioned by entirely mechanical trouble with the recording mechanism, but most deafness, particularly when partial, is psychosomatic or caused by mental aberration. The individual may or may not be able, at first, to recall what he has heard and which has be recorded in the past, when he remembers it. In other words, it does not get a sound when he remembers that he heard a sound. This is an occlusion of sound recordings. Recalling a sound in hearing it again is called “sonic” in Dianetics and is a desirable circumstance which can be returned to the individual. 

It is interesting to note that there is also a depth perception in sound. A person having two ears gets a “stereoscopic” effect on sources of sound so that he can tell how far they are from him and where they are located in relationship to him.

Can you recall a time when you heard:

1. 	A gentle wind.
2. 	A quiet voice.
3. 	A pleasant sound.
4. 	A pleasant voice.
5. 	A breeze. 
6. 	A dog whining. 
7. 	A bell. 
8. 	A cheerful voice. 
9. 	A musical instrument. 
10. 	A door close. 
11. 	Water running. 
12. 	Liquid coming from a bottle. 
13. 	Good food frying. 
14. 	A ball rolling. 
15. 	A wheel singing. 
16. 	A car starting. 
17. 	A child laughing. 
18. 	A ball bouncing. 
19. 	A sewing machine running. 
20. 	A cat mewing. 
21. 	A pen writing. 
22. 	A child running. 
23. 	A book page turning. 

24. 	A newspaper being opened. 
25. 	A kiss. 
26. 	A stimulating sound. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

27. 	A smooth sound. 
28. 	A rhythmic sound. 
29. 	A happy sound. 
30. 	A rubbing sound. 
31. 	An enthusiastic sound. 
32. 	A sigh. 
33. 	An eager voice. 
34. 	A revelry. 
35. 	A band. 
36. 	A silky sound. 
37. 	Restful water. 
38. 	A sound in a big place. 
39. 	A wanted sound. 
40. 	An endearing sound. 
41. 	A domestic sound. 
42. 	A busy sound. 
43. 	A pleasant sound. 
44. 	A far-off sound. 
45. 	A nearby sound. 
46. 	A number of sounds jumbled together. 
47. 	A safe sound. 
48. 	A sound that is very real to you. 

 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Olfactory

The sense of smell is evidently activated by small particles escaping from the object, which is thus sensed traveling through space and meeting the nerves. When one comes to think of it, this seems rather unpleasant at times, but there are also many very pleasant smells. 

The sense of smell has four subdivisions which are mainly categories of the type of odor. 

Taste is usually considered to be a part of the sense of smell. 

Can you recall a time when you smelled the following:

1. 	Something sweet. 
2. 	Something sharp. 
3.	Something oily. 
4. 	Something pungent. 
5. 	Something desirable. 
6. 	Something burned. 
7. 	Something stimulating. 
8. 	Something cheerful. 
9. 	A good person. 
10. 	A happy person. 
11. 	A warm person.
12. 	A friendly animal.  
13. 	A pleasant leaf. 
14. 	Cut grass.
15. 	Something passionate. 
16. 	Something you wanted. 
17. 	Something you threw away. 
18. 	A bird. 
19. 	Something exciting. 
20. 	Something desirable. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

21. 	A child. 
22. 	Face powder. 
23. 	Perfume. 
24. 	Lipstick. 
25. 	Leather. 
26. 	Pipe smoke. 
27. 	Sweat. 
28. 	Wool. 
29. 	Clean sheets. 
30. 	Fresh air. 
31. 	A bouquet. 
32. 	Money. 
33. 	Paper. 
34. 	Furniture. 
35. 	A beautiful morning. 
36. 	A party. 
37. 	A pleasant odor that is very real to you. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Can you recall a time when you tasted the following:

1. 	Soup. 
2. 	Eggs. 
3. 	Bread. 
4. 	Biscuits. 
5.	Coffee.
6. 	Tea. 
7. 	Milk. 
8. 	Cereal. 
9. 	Dumplings. 
10. 	Fish. 
11. 	Beef. 
12. 	Chicken. 
13. 	A steak. 
14. 	Duck. 
15. 	Stuffing. 
16. 	Cheese. 
17. 	A fillet. 
18. 	Potatoes. 
19. 	Water melon. 
20. 	A cocktail. 
21. 	Liquor. 
22. 	A hot sandwich.
23. 	Jelly. 
24. 	Ice cream. 
25. 	Pudding. 
26. 	Candy. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

27. 	Pickles. 
28. 	Punch. 
29. 	A vegetable. 
30. 	An apple. 
31. 	An orange. 
32. 	A fruit. 
33. 	Cake. 
34. 	Something you really thought was well cooked. 
35. 	Something you like to eat raw. 
36. 	A cookie. 
37. 	A cracker. 
38. 	Meat. 
39. 	Something cold. 
40. 	Something warm. 
41. 	Your favorite dish. 
42. 	Something in a swanky place. 
43. 	Something at a party. 
44. 	Something in the open.
45. 	Something on a holiday.
46.	 Something when you were very hungry.
47. 	Something which was rare. 
48. 	Something which made you feel good. 
49. 	Something for which you were grateful.
50. 	Something you had waited for a long time. 
51. 	Something you had not been able to get. 
52. 	Something you stole. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Touch

The sense of touch is that communication channel which informs the central control system of the body whenever some portion of the body is in contact with the material universe, other organisms, or the organism itself. Probably the sense of touch is the oldest sense in the terms of the central nervous system. It has four subdivisions. 

The first of these is pressure; the second is friction; the third is heat or cold; and the last is oiliness. Just as an individual can be hard of hearing or have bad eyesight so can his sense of touch be dulled or even almost absent. This condition is known as anaesthesia. Just as in any other perceptic, the sense of touch can be pleasurable, unpleasant or painful. When an individual has been considerably harmed, as in accidents, illness or injury, he tends to cut communication with the physical universe and other organisms, just as he cuts communication by getting bad eyesight, becoming hard of hearing, etc. 

Not only can the sense of touch be dulled in some people, but it can be too sensitive in others who have this sense channel aberrated until it seeks to contact danger more avidly than danger exists. One of the manifestations of the aberrated sense of touch is too high a sensitivity to sexual contact rendering it painful or anxious, or a dulling of this contact sc that sensation can be nearly absent. 

A sense of touch is very important. It is partially responsible for pleasure, as in sex and is to a large measure responsible for the sensation we know as physical pain. The sense of touch extends from the central nervous system to the skin surface and as such is intimately connected and most basically in contact with the physical universe. Sight and sound and the olfactory systems contact things usually at a distance, whereas touch is alert only to the closest proximity of actual contact. 

Touch is partially responsible for the pleasure taken in food and crosses, to this extent, the sense of taste. As a demonstration of how poorly the sense of touch serves many people, try laying your hand in a friendly fashion on the shoulder of someone. All too many people will dodge or shrink away from the contact. An aberrated sense of touch is partially responsible for a dislike of food as well as impotency and antipathy for the sexual act. 

The rehabilitation of the sense of touch goes a long way toward rehabilitating one’s confidence in one’s environment and considerably enhances survival by making it possible for the individual to obtain pleasure, where before there might only have been distaste. 

Can you recall an incident when you felt/touched:
1. 	The pressure on your feet while you stood. 
2. 	A fork. 
3. 	A greasy surface. 
4. 	The pressure of a movie seat. 
5. 	A steering wheel. 
6. 	A cat. 
7. 	Another person. 
8. 	Cool clothing. 
9. 	Your hair.
10. 	A child. 
11. 	Something you admired. 
12. 	Something new. 
13. 	An arm. 
14. 	A ball. 
15. 	An easy chair. 
16. 	A collar. 
17.	A poker.
18. 	A musical instrument. 
19. 	Something comfortable. 
20. 	Something which gave you confidence. 
21. 	Something bright. 
22. 	A desk. 
23. 	A girl. 
24. 	A boy. 
25. 	A fish. 
26. 	A doll. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

27. 	Silk. 
28. 	Velvet. 
29. 	Your ear. 
30. 	Your body. 
31. 	Something which made you feel enthusiastic.
32. 	Something which delighted you. 
33. 	Something you desired eagerly. 
34. 	Someone who was faithful. 
35. 	A happy child. 
36. 	A generous hand. 
37. 	A good machine. 
38. 	A pleasant letter. 
39. 	A newspaper containing good news. 
40. 	A telephone when you received good news. 
41. 	A hat. 
42. 	A dear face. 
43. 	A stair bannister. 
44. 	A kind object. 
45. 	A moving object. 
46. 	An object you loved. 
47. 	An enemy being hurt. 
48. 	A polite person. 
49. 	Something pretty. 
50. 	Something which made you rejoice. 
51. 	A food you liked. 
52. 	Something you believed in. 
53. 	Something you like stroke. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

54. 	A strong person. 
55. 	A little person. 
56. 	Water you enjoyed. 
57. 	A shower. 
58. 	An old person. 
59. 	Something warm. 
60. 	Something cold. 
61. 	A wind. 
62. 	A sleepy person. 
63. 	A cool bed on a warm night. 
64. 	Something which made you enthusiastic. 
65. 	Something you touched this morning. 
66. 	Something you are touching now. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Personal Emotion

There are many emotions. The principal ones are happiness, boredom, antagonism, anger, covert hostility, fear, grief, and apathy. Other emotions are usually simply greater or lesser magnitude than the ones listed. Terror, for instance, is a volume of fear. Sadness is a small volume of grief. Dejection is a small part of apathy. Love is an intensity of happiness addressed in a certain direction. These emotions form a gradient scale which make up in Dianetics the Emotion section of the tone scale. Happiness is the highest emotion and apathy is the lowest. A person can be chronically emotional along any level of this tone scale. An individual tends to move up or down this scale through these various listed emotions in the order of the first sentence. 

Emotion monitors or regulates the endocrine system. The perceptions and the central nervous system call for certain emotional secretions to catalyse the body to meet the various situations in the environment. Emotion is one of the easiest things to aberrate. There are individuals who feel they must be perpetually sad, even when their circumstances should make them happy. There are individuals who believe they have to be happy regardless of their environment and who yet are very miserable. Most people are not emotional—they are mis emotional, in that they do not react to the situations in their environment with the emotion which would be most rational to display The social order has confused irrationality with emotionalism. Actually a person who is fully rational would be most able to respond to the stimulus of his environment. Being rational does not mean being cold and calculating. An individual who is rationally happy can be counted upon to make the best calculations. Without free emotion, an individual cannot appreciate as he should the pleasant things in his environment. Lack of appreciation for art or music comes about when the individual cannot be freely emotional. The person who feels he must be coldblooded in order to be rational is what is called in Dianetics a “control case”, and on examination will be found to be very far from as rational as he might be. People who cannot experience emotion because of their aberrations are ordinarily sick people. Well people can experience emotion. 

Derangements in the endocrine system, such as the thyroid, the pancreas and other glands, come about because of aberrations concerning emotion. It has been conclusively tested and proven in Dianetics that function controls structure. To a man or a woman who is aberrated sexually, injections of hormones are of little or no avail in moving the mental aberrations which make injections ineffective. Removing emotional aberration rehabilitates the endocrine system so that the injections are usually not even necessary. When a person’s emotional reaction becomes frozen, he can expect various physical difficulties such as ulcers, hypo-thyroid conditions, diabetes, and other ills which are more or less directly traceable to the endocrine system.

Inhibited or excessive mis-emotionalism is one of the most destructive things which can occur in the human organism. A person who is so aberrated is unable to experience happiness and so enjoy life. His physical body will not thrive.

Can you recall an incident when: 

1. 	Somebody was angry. 
2. 	Somebody wanted something. 
3. 	You desired something. 
4. 	You were happy. 
5. 	You were pleased. 
6. 	You won by being antagonistic. 
7. 	You felt affectionate. 
8. 	You admired something. 
9. 	Something was amiable. 
10. 	You were amused. 
11. 	You approved of an object. 
12. 	You were surprised by something pleasant.
13. 	You attacked something successfully.
14. 	You attacked someone. 
15. 	You were “attached” to something. 
16. 	You had to blush. 
17. 	You felt bold. 
18. 	You couldn’t be bothered. 
19. 	You were energetic. 
20. 	You found out you weren’t clumsy. 
21. 	You were satisfied. 
22. 	You cared for somebody. 
23. 	You were confident. 
24. 	You influenced somebody. 
25. 	You were glad to be idle.
26. 	Somebody was patient.

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

27. 	You enjoyed life. 
28. 	You were joyful. 
29. 	You laughed. 
30. 	You were in love. 
31. 	You received good news. 
32. 	You enjoyed the music. 
33. 	You thought it was pretty. 
34. 	You were satiated. 
35. 	You were passionate. 
36. 	You prevented something. 
37. 	You produced something. 
38. 	You were glad to avoid a quarrel. 
39. 	You were glad to hurt somebody. 
40. 	You rejoiced. 
41. 	You felt very safe. 
42. 	You screamed with laughter. 
43. 	You enjoyed the silence
44. 	You got to go to bed.
45. 	You found it was beautiful day. 
46. 	You won the struggle.
47. 	You subdued a person.
48. 	You conquered something. 
49. 	You obtained what you wanted. 
50. 	You surprised somebody. 

51. 	You contributed. 
52. 	You were permitted to handle something. 
53. 	You were glad you didn’t have to be sorry. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

54. 	You found the anxiety was for nothing. 
55. 	You discovered your suspicions were unfounded. 
56. 	You finally got rid of it. 
57. 	You stopped somebody from being terrified. 
58. 	You were happy. 
59. 	Somebody understood you. 
60. 	Somebody listened you respectfully. 
61. 	You felt energetic. 
62. 	You were vigorous. 
63. 	You knew it was well done. 
64. 	You didn’t have to watch any more. 
65. 	You liked to watch. 
66. 	You stopped somebody from weeping. 
67. 	You wandered at will. 
68. 	You felt free. 
69. 	You helped somebody. 
70. 	You felt young. 
71. 	You won. 
72. 	You were glad to be together. 
73. 	You were glad to leave. 
74. 	You liked emotion. 
75. 	You enjoyed moving. 
76. 	The motion gave you joy.
77. 	You caught sight of something you had been waiting for. 
78. 	You received a present you liked. 
79. 	You found something out. 
80. 	You pushed something away. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

81. 	You pulled something to you. 
82. 	You produced something. 
83. 	You were proud of it. 
84. 	You raised something high. 
85. 	You prevailed. 
86. 	You harnessed some energy. 
87. 	You made the time pleasant. 
88. 	You were glad to be with a friend. 
89. 	You made something obey. 
90. 	You were happy to give offence. 
91. 	You realized your luck was good. 
92. 	You overcame antagonism. 
93. 	You found it was fun to leap. 
94. 	You got out of work. 
95. 	You didn’t have to sit there anymore. 
96. 	You realized it was the last day of school. 
97. 	You were happy it was real. 
98. 	You felt virtuous. 
99. 	You knew you shown courage. 
100.  Your desire was gratified. 
101.  You succeeded in y deception. 
102.  You conquered dejection. 
103.  You were glad it over. 
104.  You waited eagerly.
105.  You dispersed them
106.  You could tell the difference. 
107.  Your parent was proud of you. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

108.  Somebody was faith to you. 
109.  You escaped. 
110.  You found you had hidden without cause 
111.  You frightened so body. 
112.  You overcame conservatism. 
113.  You discovered a friend.
114.  You were friendly.
115.  You did something forbidden and got away with it. 
116.  You gave somebody the gate. 
117.  You healed something.
118.  You acquired a pet.
119.  It was a relief. 
120.  You found you we hurt. 
121.  You received a pleasant call. 
122.	Your income was increased. 
123.  You found you had influence. 
124.  You were ambitious. 
125.	You succeeded. 
126. You found you didn’t want it after all.
127. You conquered being poor. 
128. Many were proud of you. 
129. You were loved. 
130. They rejoiced for you. 
131. You were considered remarkable. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Organic Sensation

Organic sensation is that sense which tells the central nervous system the state of the various organs of the body. Don’t be alarmed if you feel groggy for a while or if you yawn prodigiously. These manifestations are good and they will pass away if you recall a certain additional number of recollections on the same question that made you feel strange. 

Can you recall a time when:

1. 	You felt yourself to be in good physical condition. 
2. 	You enjoyed yourself physically.
3. 	You had just eaten something you liked. 
4. 	Your head felt good.
5. 	Your back felt good. 
6. 	You felt very relieved. 
7. 	You were excited. 
8. 	You felt very much alive. 
9. 	You were proud of your body. 
10. 	Your body was competent. 
11. 	Your heart was beating calmly. 
12. 	You didn’t have a single ache or pain. 
13. 	You felt refreshed. 
14. 	Everybody was having a good time. 
15. 	Both of you enjoyed it. 
16. 	Your back felt strong. 
17. 	You stood very straight.
18. 	You liked your position.
19. 	You got a new position.
20.	You made it right.
21. 	Your head felt clear. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

22. 	It was good to breathe fresh air. 
23. 	You got it up. 
24. 	You got it out. 
25. 	You felt strong again. 
26. 	You had eaten a good dinner. 
27. 	You were enjoying it. 
28. 	You did it with ease. 
29. 	You poured something out. 
30. 	You were tense with excitement. 
31. 	You were relaxed. 
32. 	Your chest felt good. 
33. 	Your throat felt good. 
34. 	Your eyes felt good. 
35. 	You weren’t aware of your breathing. 
36. 	Your ears weren’t ringing. 
37. 	Your hands did something competent. 
38. 	Your legs served you well. 
39. 	Your feet felt good. 
40. 	You knew you looked good. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Motion Personal

Amongst the various perceptions is that of personal motion. This is awareness of change of position in space. Many other perceptions assist this awareness of motion of self. This perception is assisted by sight, the feel of wind, changes in body weight, and by the observation of external environment. However, it is a perceptic in itself and in the following questions your attention is called simply to the internal awareness of yourself in motion. 

Can you recall a time when: 

1. 	You were running. 
2. 	You were walking. 
3. 	You enjoyed a stroll. 
4. 	You overcame something. 
5. 	You threw something away you didn’t want. 
6. 	You won a tug of war. 
7. 	You skipped rope. 
8. 	You rode. 
9. 	You did something successful in sports. 
10. 	You lay down. 
11. 	You stood up. 
12. 	You turned around and around. 
13. 	You jumped. 
14. 	You stood on something that moved.
15. 	You leaped up. 
16. 	You won a race. 
17. 	You did something were admired for physically. 
18. 	You enjoyed moving. 
19. 	You enjoyed stand still. 
20. 	You pointed out something. 
21. 	You showed your superior physically. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

22. 	Your right hand something skilful. 
23. 	Your left hand did something skilful. 
24. 	You tamed an animal. 
25. 	You bested another person. 
26.	You did something physical you enjoyed. 
27. 	You stepped up. 
28. 	You held something close to you. 
29. 	You threw something away you didn’t want. 
30. 	You felt lazy. 
31. 	You turned the page of a book you enjoyed reading. 
32. 	You dressed. 
33. 	You got up when you wanted to. 
34. 	You enjoyed wrestling with somebody. 
35. 	You handled a complicated object successfully. 
36. 	You drove well. 
37. 	You carried some weight 
38. 	You gathered things together. 
39. 	You packed. 
40. 	You wouldn’t let some thing go. 
41. 	You enjoyed the morning. 
42. 	You danced well. 
43. 	You amused people cause you wanted to 
44. 	You refused to do was wanted of you did what you wanted. 
45. 	You were glad you you. 
46. 	You were complimented on posture. 
47. 	You shook hands with somebody you were glad to see. 
48. 	You grabbed something you desired. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Motion External

The observation of external motion is accomplished by mans sense channels. The ability to perceive motion in present time and the ability to recall things which have moved and perceive that they are moving are two different things. Inability to perceive well various motions occurring in one’s environment is dangerous, but it is caused by the misapprehension that the movements one perceives are dangerous when they most ordinarily are not. For every dangerous motion in one’s environment there are countless thousands of safe and friendly motions. Because motion has been dangerous in the past is no reason to conceive all motion is dangerous. Possibly one of the most aberrative actions above the level of unconsciousness is striking a person suddenly when he does not expect it. Slapping children, particularly when they are not alert to the fact that they are about to be slapped, tends to give an individual a distrust of all motion and even when they become of an age when a slap would be the last thing they would expect they still continue to distrust motion. In recalling motions you have seen externally, make an effort to see the actual movements which were around you. 

Can you recall a time when:

1. 	Something pleasant moved very fast. 
2. 	You saw somebody didn’t like running away from you. 
3. 	You enjoyed seeing rain come down. 
4. 	You enjoyed seeing children play. 
5. 	Trees rustled in a small wind. 
6. 	A quiet brook flower. 
7. 	You played ball. 
8. 	You saw a kite flying. 
9. 	You were exhilarated riding downhill. 
10. 	You saw a bird fly gracefully. 
11. 	You perceived the man had moved. 
12. 	You scared an animal away from you. 
13. 	You saw a graceful dancer. 

14. 	You saw an accomplished musician. 
15. 	You saw an excellent actor. 
16. 	You watched a graceful girl. 
17. 	You watched a happy child. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

18. 	You started an object.
19. 	You stopped an object.
20. 	You broke something you didn’t like. 
21. 	You watched a graceful man. 
22. 	You enjoyed watching a ferocious animal. 
23. 	You were glad to see something fall. 
24. 	You watched something going around and around. 
25. 	You enjoyed bouncing something. 
26. 	You were happy to see something shoot up in the air. 
27. 	You watched a fast horse. 
28. 	You heard something swift. 
29. 	You saw a “shooting star”. 
30. 	You saw grass moving in the wind. 
31. 	You watched the second hand of a clock. 
32. 	You saw somebody you didn’t like walk away from you. 
33. 	You saw somebody you liked walk towards you. 
34. 	Somebody ran up and greeted you. 
35. 	You saw an animal chasing an animal. 
36. 	You moved an object. 
37. 	You lifted an object. 
38. 	You threw an object down. 
39. 	You watched a friendly fire. 
40. 	You saw a light come on. 
41. 	You saw something go into something. 
42. 	You emptied something. 
43. 	You pulled something out. 
44. 	You heard a friendly movement. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Body Position

One is aware of the position of one’s body by special perceptions. These include joint position. With the following questions give particular attention in the incident you recall to the position of your body at the time the incident occured.

Can you recall a time when:

1. 	You enjoyed just sitting. 
2. 	You fought your way of a place where you didn’t want to be. 
3. 	You stood and enjoyed a view. 
4. 	You put your toe in mouth. 
5. 	You tried to stand your head. 
6. 	You tried to see if could be a contortionist. 
7. 	You drank something pleasant. 
8. 	You ate an excel meal. 
9. 	You drove a good car.
10. 	You were doing something you liked.
11. 	You enjoyed handling something. 
12. 	You were competent in a sport. 
13. 	You were admired. 
14. 	You were happy. 
15. 	You enjoyed a chance to sit down. 
16. 	You enthusiastically stood up to go some place. 
17. 	You got rid of something. 
18. 	You watched a child being trained. 
19. 	You wanted to stay and did. 
20. 	You wanted to leave and did.

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 4

Standard Processing

One can consider that the missions of the energy of Life, or at least one of them, is the creation, conservation, maintenance, acquisition, destruction, change, occupation, grouping and dispersal of matter, energy, space and time, which are the component factors of the material universe. 

So long as an individual maintains his own belief in his ability to handle the physical universe and organisms about him and to control them if necessary or to work in harmony with them, and to make himself competent over and among the physical universe of his environment, he remains healthy, stable and balanced and cheerful. It is only after he discovers his inabilities in handling organisms, matter, energy, space and time, and when these things have been sharply painful to him, that he begins to decline physically, become less competent mentally, and to fail in life. These questions are aimed toward the rehabilitation of his ability to handle organisms and the physical universe. 

It was a pre-dianetic error that an individual was healthy so long as he was adjusted to his environment. Nothing could be less workable than this “adaptive” postulate and had anyone cared to compare it with actuality he would have discovered that the success of man depends upon his ability to master and change his environment. Man succeeds because he adjusts his environment to him, not by adjusting himself to the environment. The “adjusted” postulate is indeed a viciously dangerous one, since it seeks to indoctrinate the individual into the belief that he must be a slave to his environment. The philosophy is dangerous because the people so indoctrinated can be enslaved in that last of all graveyards, a welfare state. However, this postulate is very handy in case one wishes to subjugate or nullify human beings for his own ends. The effort in the direction of adjusting men to their environment by giving them “social training”, by punishing them if they are bad, and by otherwise attempting to subdue and break them, has filled the society’s prisons and insane asylums to the bursting point. Had anyone cared to look at the real universe he would have found this to be true: No living organism can be broken by force into an adjusted state and still remain able and amiable. Any horse trainer, for instance, knows that the horse must not be pushed or broken into submission if one wishes to retain his abilities, but, as they used to say in the army, mules were far more expensive than men, and perhaps it was not in the interest of pre-dianetic thought to preserve men in a happy state. However, one should not be too harsh on these previous schools of thought since they had no knowledge of the natural laws of thought and in the absence of these, criminals can only be punished and not cured and the insane can only be driven down into the last dregs of tractability. The nearer to death, according to those schools of thought, the better, as witness electric shock “therapy” and brain surgery—those efforts on the part of the mental medical men to as closely approximate euthanasia as possible without crossing the border into the legal fact of death. These past schools have now been taken under the wing of Dianetics, which embraces all fields of thought, and are being re-educated. It is found that they quickly desert the punishment- drive “therapies” as soon as they completely understand that they are not necessary, now that the natural laws of thought and behaviour are known. One cannot, however, wholly repress a shudder at the fate of the hundreds of thousands of human guinea pigs whose lives and persons were ruined by the euthanistic methods employed in the dark ages of unreason. 

Your health depends almost entirely upon your confidence in your ability to handle the physical universe about you and to change and adjust your environment so that you can survive in it. It is actually an illusion that you cannot ably handle your environment, an illusion implanted by aberrated people in the past, during moments when you were unconscious and could not defend yourself or when you were small and were directed and misdirected and given pain and sorrow and upset, and had no way to effect your right to handle yourself in your environment. 

On Lake Tanganyika the natives have a very interesting way of catching fish. There on the Equator the sun shines straight down through the clear water. The natives take blocks of wood and string them along a long rope. They stretch this rope between two canoes and with these abreast begin to paddle toward the shoal water. By the time they have reached the shoals, schools of fish are piled and crowded into the rocks and onto the beach. The blocks of wood on the rope made shadows which went all the way down to the bottom of the lake and the fish, seeing the approach of these shadows and the apparent solid bars which they formed in the water, swam fearfully away from them and so were caught. 

A man can be driven and harassed and worked upon by aberrated people about him until he too conceives shadows to be reality. Should he simply reach out toward them, he would discover how thin and penetratable they are. His usual course, however, is to retreat from them and at last find himself in the shadows of bad health, broken dreams and an utter disownment of himself and the physical universe. 

A considerable mechanical background of the action and peculiarities of the energy of thought make it possible for these lists to bring about the improved state of being that they do, when properly used; but over and above these mechanical aspects, the simple recognition that there have been times in one’s life when he did control the physical universe as needful, when he was in harmony with organisms about him, validate the reality of his ability. 

Caught up by the illusion of words, stressed into obedience when he was a child by physical means, man is subject to his greatest shadow and illusion—language. The words, forcefully spoken, “Come here !” have no actual physical ability to draw the individual to the speaker. Yet he may approach, although he may be afraid to do so. He is impelled in his approach because he has been made to “come here” by physical force so many times in the early period of his life, while the words “come here” were being spoken, that he is trained much like a dog to obey a signal. The physical force which made him approach is lost to view and in its place stands the shadow “come here”; thus, to that degree he loses his self-determinism on the subject of “come here”. As life goes on, he makes the great error of supposing that any and all words have force and importance. With words, those about him plant their shadow cages. They restrict him from doing this; they compel him to do that and almost hour-by-hour and day-by-day he is directed by streams of words which in the ordinary society are not meant to help him but only to restrain him because of the fear of others. This Niagara of language is effective only because it substitutes for periods when he was physically impelled against his wishes to accept things he did not want, to care for things for which he actually had no use or liking, to go where he did not wish to go, and to do what he did not want to do. Language is quite acceptable when understood as a symbol for the act and thing, but the word “ash tray” is no substitute for an ash tray. If you do not believe this, try to put your ashes on the air waves which have just carried the words “ash tray”. Called a “saucer” or an “elephant”, the object intended for ashes serves just as well. 

By the trick of language, then, and a magical wholly un- substantial trick it is, men seek to order the lives of men for their own advantage, and men caged about by the shadows observe and believe to their own detriment. 

All languages derive from observation of matter, energy, space and time and other organisms in the environment. There is no word which is not derived and which does not have the connotation of the physical universe and other organisms. 

Thus, when you answer these questions by recalling incidents which they evoke, be very sure that you do not evoke language incidents but action incidents. You do not want the time when you were told to do something—you want the time when you performed the action. You do not have to connect the language to the action in any way, but you will find as you answer questions on any of these lists that the value of language begins to depreciate considerably and that language strangely enough will become much more useful to you.

Can you recall a time when:

1.	You moved an object.
2.	An object moved you.
3.	You threw an organism up into the air.
4. 	You walked down stairs. 
5. 	You acquired something you wanted. 
6. 	You created something good. 
7. 	You felt big in a certain space. 
8. 	You were proud to move something heavy. 
9. 	You handled energy well. 
10. 	You built a fire. 
11. 	You lost something you didn’t want. 
12. 	You forced something on somebody. 
13. 	You promoted survival. 
14. 	You pleasantly expended time. 
15. 	You closed in space. 
16. 	You were master of your own time. 
17. 	You opened up a space. 
18. 	You handled a machine well. 
19. 	You stopped a machine. 
20. 	You raised an object. 
21. 	You lowered yourself. 
22. 	You destroyed something you didn’t want. 
23. 	You changed something for the better. 
24. 	An organism you did not like moved away from you. 
25. 	You obtained something you wanted. 

26. 	You maintained a person. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

27. 	You brought somebody you liked close to you. 
28. 	You left a space you didn’t like. 
29. 	You conquered energy. 
30. 	You destroyed a bad organism. 
31. 	You handled fluid well. 
32. 	You brought a number of pleasant objects together. 
33. 	You placed a number of objects into space. 
34. 	You threw unwanted objects away. 
35. 	You dispersed many objects. 
36. 	You tore an unwanted object to pieces. 
37. 	You filled a space. 
38. 	You regulated another’s time. 
39. 	You held an object close that you wanted.
40. 	You improved an object.
41. 	You emptied a space you wanted. 
42. 	You went a distance. 
43. 	You let time go. 
44. 	You did what you wanted to do yourself. 
45. 	You won out over an organism. 
46. 	You got out from under domination. 
47. 	You realized you were living your own life. 
48. 	You knew you didn’t have to do it. 
49. 	You escaped from a dangerous space. 
50. 	You entered upon a pleasant time. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 5

Assists to Remembering

“Remember” is derived, of course, directly from action in the physical universe. How would a deaf mute teach a child to remember? It would be necessary for him to keep forcing objects or actions on the child when the child left them alone or omitted them. Although parents are not deaf mutes, children do not understand languages at very early ages, and as a consequence learn to “remember” by having their attention first called toward actions and objects, spaces and time. It violates the self-determinism of the individual, and therefore his ability to handle himself, to have things forced upon him without his agreement. This could be said to account, in part, for some of the “poor memories” about which people brag or complain. 

Because one learns language at the level of the physical universe and action within it, he could be said to do with his thoughts what he has been compelled to do with the matter, energy, space and time in his environment. Thus, if these have been forced upon him and he did not want them, after a while he will begin to reject the thoughts concerning these objects, but if these objects, spaces, times and actions are forced upon him consistently enough he will at length go into an apathy about them. He will not want them very much but he thinks he has to accept them. Later on, in school, his whole livelihood seems to depend on whether or not he can remember the “knowledge” which is forced upon him. 

The physical universe level of remembering then, is retaining matter, energy, space and time. To improve the memory, it is only necessary to rehabilitate the individual’ s choice of acceptance of the material universe. 

In answering these questions, particular attention should be paid to the happier incidents. Inevitably many unhappy incidents will flick through, but where selection is possible happy or analytical incidents should be stressed. This list does not pertain to asking you to remember times when you remembered. It pertains to acquiring things which you wanted to acquire. 

Can you remember a time when:

1. 	You acquired something you wanted. 
2. 	You threw away something you didn’t want. 

3. 	You abandoned something you knew you were supposed to have. 

4. 	You did something else with the time which was otherwise appointed for you. 

5. 	You went into a space you were not supposed to occupy. 
6. 	You left the place you were supposed to be. 
7. 	You were happy to have acquired something. 
8. 	You happily defied directions you had been given. 
9. 	You were sent to one place and chose to go to another. 
10. 	You chose your own clothing. 
11. 	You wore something in spite of what people would think. 
12. 	You got rid of something which bored you. 
13. 	You were glad to have choice over one of two objects. 
14. 	You didn’t drink any more than you wanted to. 
15. 	You successfully refused to eat. 
16. 	You did what you pleased with yourself. 
17. 	You did what you pleased with a smaller person. 
18. 	You were right not to have accepted something. 
19. 	You gave away a present you had received. 
20. 	You destroyed an object somebody forced upon you. 
21. 	You had something you wanted and maintained it well.
22. 	You maliciously scuffed your shoes. 
23. 	You didn’t read the book you had been given. 

24. 	You refused to be owned. 
25. 	You changed somebody’s orders. 
26. 	You slept where you pleased. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

27. 	You refused to bathe. 
28. 	You spoiled some clothing and were cheerful about it. 
29. 	You got what you wanted. 
30. 	You got back something you had lost. 
31. 	You got the person you wanted. 
32. 	You refused a partner. 
33. 	You threw the blanket off the bed. 
34. 	You had your own way. 
35. 	You found you had been right in refusing it.

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 6

Forgetter Section

It is generally conceded that the opposite to remember is to forget. People can easily become confused between these two things so that they forget what they think they should remember and remember what they think they should forget. The basic and underlying confusion between forget and remember has to do, evidently, with what has been done to the individual on a physical level and what has been forced on him or taken away from him in terms of matter, energy, space and time. 

The word forget rests for its definition on the action of leaving something alone. How would a deaf mute teach a child to forget something? He would, of course, have to hide it or consistently take it away from a child until the child went into apathy about it and would have nothing further to do with it. If he did this enough, so that the child would abandon the object, a child could be said to have forgotten the object, since the child, or any person, will do with his thoughts what he has done with the matter, energy, space, time and organisms around him, thoughts being an approximation in symbological form of the physical universe. If a child has been forcefully made to leave alone or abandon objects, energy, spaces and times, later on when he hears the word forget, this means he must abandon a certain thought and if he is in apathy concerning the forced loss of objects or having them taken away from him in childhood, he will proceed to forget them very thoroughly. 

It could be said that an individual will occlude as many thoughts as he has had to leave alone or those objects in life. Pain itself is a loss being uniformly accompanied by the loss of cells of the body. Thus the loss of objects, or organisms, by the individual can be misconstrued as being painful. Memories then can be called painful which actually contain no physical pain. But the individual must have had physical pain in order to understand that the loss means pain. 

Punishment often accompanies, in child training, the times when the child is supposed to leave something alone. Thus, having to leave something alone is equivalent to being painful. Thus to remember something one is supposed to forget could be erroneously judged to be painful and indeed it is not. 

There is a whole philosophy in existence that the best thing to do with unpleasant thoughts is to forget them. This is based securely upon an apathy occasioned by early training. A child when asking for an object will usually at first be cheerful and when he does not procure it will become angry; if he still does not procure it he may cry; and at last goes into apathy concerning it and says that he does not want it. This is one of the derivations of the dianetic tone scale and can be observed by anyone. 

These questions, then, are an effort to overcome the times when one has had to leave things alone, when one has had to lose things, and when the loss has been enforced. Thus, when answering these questions, it would be very well to try to find several incidents for each, particularly a very early incident. 

Can you recall an incident when: 

1. 	You put something aside because you thought it was dangerous but it wasn’t. 

2. 	You acquired something you were not supposed to have and kept it. 

3. 	You cheerfully got into everything you were supposed to leave alone. 

4. 	You went back to something you had been pulled away from. 
5. 	You found the caution to leave something alone groundless. 
6. 	You cheerfully destroyed an expensive object.
7. 	You threw away something you wanted. 
8. 	You played with somebody you were supposed to leave alone. 
9. 	You were right in disobeying. 
10. 	You read a forbidden book. 
11. 	You enjoyed having things. 
12. 	You acquired a dangerous object and enjoyed it. 
13. 	You stole some food and were cheerful about it.
14. 	You ate exactly what you pleased.
15. 	You fixed some electrical wiring successfully.
16. 	You played with fire.
17. 	You successfully drove dangerously.
18. 	You touched something in spite of all warnings.
19. 	You got away with it.
20. 	She walked out on you. 
21. 	You and some friends collected objects. 
22. 	You touched a forbidden thing happily. 
23. 	You got it anyway. 
24. 	You went where you weren’t supposed to and enjoyed it. 
25. 	You owned something that was once forbidden. 
26. 	He walked out on you. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

27. 	You threw away something you had had to accept. 
28. 	You found something which had been hidden from you. 

29. 	You acquired a habit you weren’t supposed to have and enjoyed it. 
30. 	You were right and they were wrong. 
31. 	You enjoyed yourself in a forbidden space. 
32. 	You weren’t supposed to do it and you did. 
33. 	People were glad they had been wrong about you. 
34. 	You recovered something somebody had thrown away. 
35. 	You bullied somebody into giving you something you wanted. 
36. 	You kept on with this processing despite what was said. 

37. 	You persisted in doing something until they agreed you had a right to. 

38. 	You suddenly realized you could do anything you wanted with an object. 
39. 	You did something dangerous and got away with 
40. 	Your group finally got something they had been denied. 
41. 	You found you didn’t have to sit there anymore. 
42. 	You realized you didn’t have to go to school ever again. 
43. 	You realized it was recess. 
44. 	You played hooky. 
45. 	You made something look like something else. 
46. 	You found where an adult had made a mistake. 
47. 	You discovered it wasn’t what they said it was. 
48. 	You found yourself master of all your possessions. 
49. 	You discovered you didn’t necessarily have to go to sleep at night. 
50. 	Although you felt you had to eat it, you left it alone. 
51. 	You ate something that wasn’t good for you and enjoyed it. 
52. 	You let yourself get mad and were glad of it. 
53. 	You suddenly decided you couldn’t be that bad. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

54. 	You opened a forbidden door. 
55. 	You made it go very fast when it should have gone slow. 
56. 	You stole some time. 
57. 	You found some love you didn’t know was there. 
58. 	You abandoned somebody and were glad of it. 
59. 	You refused to leave that time alone. 
60. 	You sneaked off and built a fire. 
61. 	You didn’t realize it could be that good. 
62. 	You found out it wasn’t bad to play. 
63. 	You couldn’t see what was wrong with pleasure. 

64. 	You left off doing something you were supposed to do to do something you enjoyed. 
65. 	You acquired a space you once wouldn’t have had. 
66. 	You indulged yourself thoroughly. 
67. 	They couldn’t keep you back from it. 
68. 	You successfully refused to come to the table. 
69. 	You got burned anyway and didn’t care. 
70. 	You got rid of an object and acquired liberty. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 7

Survival Factors

In that the basic drive of life is Survival and in that good Survival must contain an abundance, the survival characteristics of people, organisms, matter, energy, space and time, from the viewpoint of an individual, are very important. The incentive toward Survival is the acquisition of pleasure. The thrust away from death is the threat of pain. High ideals and ethics enhance the potentialities of the individual and the group in surviving. The ultimate in Survival is immortality. 

The factors which make up life can become contradictory in that one item can, in itself, assist survival and inhibit survival. A knife for instance is prosurvival in the hand, but contra survival when pointed at the breast by somebody else. As a person advances in life, he becomes confused as to the survival value of certain persons, various objects, energy, space and time. The individual desires survival for himself, for his family, for his children, for his group, for life in general, and the physical universe. Confusing one thing with another and beholding an item which was once survival become nonsurvival, beholding nonsurvival entities taking on survival qualities, the ability of the individual to evaluate his environment in terms of whether it assists or inhibits survival deteriorates. 

An individual, a family, a group best survives, of course, when prosurvival entities are in proximity and available and when contrasurvival entities are absent. The struggle of life could be said to be the procurement of prosurvival factors and the annihilation, destruction, banishment of contrasurvival factors. 

Emotion is directly regulated by prosurvival and contra survival factors in life. When an individual procures and has in his proximity a strong survival entity such as another person or animal or object, he is happy. As this prosurvival entity departs from him, his emotional reaction deteriorates in direct ratio to his belief in his ability to recover it. As it threatens to depart he becomes antagonistic and fights to keep it near him. If its departure seems certain, he will become angry and lest it become prosurvival for another life form and he is assured he has lost it, he will even destroy it. When he realizes what his own state may be or the state of his family, children or group with his prosurvival entity departed he experiences fear that its loss will be permanent. When he recognizes what he believes to be a nearly irretrievable absence of this prosurvival entity he experiences grief. When it is considered to be lost permanently he experiences apathy and in apathy he may even go to the point of saying he did not want it. Actually, from antagonism on down the tone scale of emotion all the way to grief, he is still fighting to get it back and only in apathy abandons it and negates against it. 

In the case of a person, animal, object, energy, space or time which threatens the survival of an individual, his family, his children, or his group, the best survival can be accomplished when such an entity has been banished or destroyed or is as distant as possible from the individual, his family, his children, or his group. In the case of the mad dog, the greatest danger exists when he is nearest and the greatest safety exists when he is most distant or absent. With contrasurvival objects, then, we have the tone scale in reverse. When the contrasurvival object is present and cannot be put away, the individual experiences apathy. When the individual believes himself to be threatened or when he feels his family, his children or his group are threatened by a contrasurvival object to a point where he cannot easily repel it, grief is experienced, for grief contains some hope of victory through enlisting the sympathy of one’s allies. When a contrasurvival entity is threatening to approach, fear is experienced, providing one feels that direct attack is not possible. If the contrasurvival object is near, but the individual, his family, his children or his group feel that it can be conquered, even though it is already too close, anger results. If a contra survival entity might possibly approach, antagonism is demonstrated. Above this level contrasurvival objects may be more and more distant or easily handled up to the point where the individual can even be cheerful about them, at which time they are either absent or can be handled with ease. Individuals get into a fixed emotional state about their environment when contrasurvival objects remain too statically in their environment or when prosurvival objects are too difficult to obtain and cannot be procured or brought near or seem inclined to leave. Mixed with these emotional states is the confusion occasioned by a dulled ability to differentiate between the pro and contrasurvival of an entity. 

A parent is contrasurvival in that he punishes, is much too big, and cannot be contributed to, which lessens the survival potentialities of a child. On the other hand, the same parent furnishing food, clothing and shelter, and also, but not least, being an entity which loves and can be loved, is a prosurvival entity. The parent entirely absent, then, is not a satisfactory survival state. The parent present is not a satisfactory survival state. Hence an indecision results and the individual demonstrates anxiety toward the parent. But this anxiety exists because of many hidden situations extending back to the beginning of an individuals life. The following questions are designed so as to permit the individual to reevaluate the prosurvival and contrasurvival nature of persons, animals, objects, energies, space and time in general. 

Can you recall a time when: 

1. 	A person you disliked was about. 
2. 	An individual you liked stood above you. 
3. 	You finally accepted a person you liked. 
4. 	You enjoyed accompanying a person you liked.
5. 	You were against a person you liked. 
6. 	You acquired an individual you liked. 
7. 	You and a person you liked engaged in a pleasant action. 
8. 	Your action resulted in getting rid of somebody you didn’t like.
9. 	You enjoyed seeing somebody you admired.
10. 	You advanced toward a person you liked.
11. 	You acquired an object which you adored.
12. 	You knew somebody felt affection for you.
13. 	You got away from a person of whom you were afraid.
14. 	You walked after a person you liked.
15. 	A person you liked aided you.
16. 	You and people you liked were all together.
17. 	You almost met somebody you disliked.
18. 	You were glad to be alone.
19. 	Somebody aided your ambition.
20. 	You were among people you liked. 
21. 	You found somebody amiable. 
22. 	A person amused you. 
23. 	You finally didn’t have to be anxious. 
24. 	A person you liked appeared suddenly. 
25. 	You had a good appetite. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

26. 	You approached somebody you honored. 
27. 	Somebody approved of you. 
28. 	A person you liked arose. 
29. 	You were arrested by somebody’s beauty.
30. 	You enjoyed an arrival.
31. 	You found out you didn’t have to be ashamed. 
32. 	Somebody you liked was asleep.
33. 	You assailed an enemy successfully. 
34. 	A person you honored assisted you. 
35. 	You enjoyed an associate. 
36. 	You felt assured by a person you liked. 

37. 	You were astonished to find out somebody respected you after all. 
38. 	You attacked somebody you didn’t like. 
39. 	You were attached to a friend. 
40. 	Somebody you liked gave you attention. 
41. 	You were attractive to somebody. 
42. 	You were awakened by somebody of whom you were fond. 
43. 	You were glad to find somebody was bad. 
44. 	You played ball. 
45. 	You played a battle with children. 
46. 	Somebody considered you beautiful. 
47. 	You discovered you had become fond of someone. 
48. 	Somebody you disliked begged you. 
49. 	You began a friendship. 
50. 	You discovered you didn’t have to behave. 
51. 	A person you disliked was behind you. 
52. 	You were below somebody you liked. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

53. 	Somebody of whom you were fond bested you. 
54. 	You were beside your favorite friend. 
55. 	You discovered you were liked better than you thought. 
56. 	You were between two friends. 
57. 	You bit somebody you disliked. 
58. 	You decided to be blind to a fault. 
59. 	You liked somebody who was black. 
60. 	Somebody asked you to blow hard. 
61. 	Somebody’s question made you blush pleasantly. 
62. 	Somebody made you feel bold. 
63. 	You were glad somebody had been born.
64. 	Nobody could bother you.
65. 	You had reached the. bottom and started up. 
66. 	You bowed to a friend. 
67. 	You were in a box with a pleasant person. 
68. 	You broke bread with somebody you liked. 
69. 	You breakfasted with somebody you liked. 
70. 	You liked somebody so much you could hardly breathe. 
71. 	You brought somebody a present. 
72. 	You brushed against somebody you liked. 
73. 	Somebody helped you build something. 
74. 	Somebody kissed a burn. 
75. 	You were so happy you felt you would burst. 
76. 	You buried something you didn’t want. 
77. 	You were too busy to see an enemy. 
78. 	You stood by somebody. 
79. 	You saw something you disliked in a cage. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

80. 	You answered a call from a friend. 
81. 	You broke a cane. 
82. 	You captured an enemy. 
83. 	You no longer had to be careful. 
84. 	You found somebody cared. 
85. 	You enjoyed being careless. 
86. 	A cat you didn’t like walked away from you. 
87. 	You discovered you weren’t the cause. 
88. 	They couldn’t catch you and you realized it. 
89. 	You were certain of a friend. 
90. 	You discovered you had charm. 
91. 	You enjoyed a child. 
92. 	You found a church pleasant. 
93. 	You discovered there were friends in the city. 
94. 	You and others left the classroom.
95. 	Somebody believed you were clever. 
96. 	You found an enemy was clumsy. 
97. 	You didn’t have to clothe yourself as directed. 
98. 	You threw away a collar. 
99. 	You didn’t have to comb your hair. 
100.  	You were comfortable with a person. 
101.  	You saw an enemy coming and didn’t meet him. 
102.  	You could come as you pleased. 
103.  	An enemy had to obey your command. 
104.  	You found you were in command. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 8

Imagination

One of the most important parts of the thinking process is imagination. Imagination is actually a form of computation. Imagination gives calculated and instinctive solutions for the future. If an imagination is dulled, one’s computation is seriously handicapped. Imagination is a good thing, not a bad thing. With daydreaming, for instance, a person can convert a not too pleasant existence into something livable. Only with imagination can one postulate future goals to attain. 

Can you recall a time when: 

1. 	You foresaw how son thing should be and arranged it.
2. 	You imagined something and constructed it. 
3. 	You envisioned how place would look a went there. 
4. 	You were forced to admit you lied when you had told the truth. 
5. 	Somebody disarranged what was yours and you put it back. 
6. 	You delighted in filling up space with imaginary things. 
7. 	You did a masterpiece of creation. 

8. 	You saw something come into actuality which you had imagined. 
9. 	You imagined it there and destroyed it. 
10. 	Your vision was complemented. 
11. 	You planned what to with some time and did it.
12. 	You ignored interruptions and went on according to schedule. 
13. 	You saw how some space could be bettered and bettered it. 
14. 	You drew a plan and people followed it.

15. 	Things were smoother because you had thought of them that way. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 9

Valences

You may have noticed, as you were perceiving things which have occurred in the past, that you were sometimes apparently inside your own body and sometimes may have been observing yourself. There are people who are never out of their own body in recall and people who are never in it. There are many valences in everyone. By a valence is meant an actual or a shadow personality. One’s own valence is his actual personality. Be assured, however, he can get into a confusion with other bodies and persons. If one is in one’s own valence when he is recalling things, he sees what he has seen just as though he was looking at it again with his own eyes. This is a very desirable condition of affairs. The symptom of being out of one’s own valence and in a shadow valence might be said to mean that one finds his own body too dangerous to occupy in thought. Being out of valence makes perceptions hard to contact in recall. You will find, as you continue these lists, repeating each one over and over, that it becomes easier and easier to see things again out of one’s own eyes. 

In the following list of questions and in any recall, one should make an effort to take the viewpoint of himself, which is to say, to see the scene and get the perceptions as he himself got them at the time. 

Can you recall a time when:

1.	You watched a person you didn’t like doing something you liked to do.

2.	You saw a person you liked doing something you didn’t like to do.

3. 	You watched a person you liked doing something you liked to do. 

4. 	You saw a person you disliked doing something you disliked to do. 
5. 	You noticed somebody wearing something you wore. 
6. 	You found somebody using a mannerism you used. 
7. 	You adopted a mannerism. 
8. 	You found yourself and a dog being treated alike. 
9. 	You made faces at yourself in the mirror. 
10. 	You decided to be completely different from a person. 
11. 	You discovered you were like an object. 
12. 	You were classified with an unfavourable person. 
13. 	You were classified with a favorable person. 
14. 	You found yourself dressed like many others. 
15. 	You found you were different from somebody, after all. 
16. 	You noticed the difference between yourself and others. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

17. 	You ate with somebody you liked. 

18. 	You met a person who reminded you of another and noticed the difference between             	them. 

19. 	You walked in step with somebody you liked. 
20. 	You rode with somebody you admired. 
21. 	You had to take the same position as somebody else. 
22. 	You played a game with people you liked. 

23.	You found yourself doing something because somebody in your early youth did it.

24. 	You found yourself refusing to do something because somebody in your early youth 	did it.

Note that the word like is used to mean admire or feel affection for and also to be similar to. The effort of valences could be said to mean trying to be like one’s friends and unlike one’s enemies. Unfortunately in life one often has comparisons and similarities between himself and his enemies and has dissimilarities pointed out between himself and his friends. The adjustment of this is desirable so that one feels free to follow through any motion or action of any human being without associating the motion or action with either friend or enemy. 

As an effort to straighten out one’s associations and dis- associations regarding people, the following questions are appended as the second part of List 9.

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

Recall:

1. 	A person who looks like you.

2. 	A person who has physical troubles similar to yours. 

3. 	A person from whom you got a particular mannerism. 

4. 	A person who reminds you of an animal you knew. 

5. 	A person who compared you unfavorably to unfavorable persons. 

6. 	A person who compared you favorably to favorable persons. 

7. 	Two people whom you had confused with each other. 

8. 	A person you knew long ago like a person you are living with. 

9. 	A person whom you knew earlier who reminds you of a person with whom you are            	now connected. 

10. 	Who you are most like? Who said so ? 

11. 	Who used to be afraid of sentiment ? 

12. 	Who didn’t like to eat? 

13. 	Who was never supposed to amount to anything? 

14. 	Who associated with people too much? 
15. 	Who made life miserable for everybody? 

16. 	Who had bad manners? 

17. 	Who did you know earlier that had the pain that bothers you? 

18. 	Who would you most want to be like ? 

19. 	Who would you most hate to be like ? 

20. 	Who held that you amounted to nothing? 

21. 	Who tried to keep you in line ? 

22. 	Who flattered you? 

23. 	Who fed you? 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 10

Interruptions

Slowness or uncertainty of speech, stage fright in part, slowness of computation, which is to say thinking, and hesitancy in taking directions stem mainly from being interrupted in physical actions during early youth. 

The child, because he may bring danger upon himself, is continually interrupted in his physical actions. He reaches for something and is turned away from it, not simply by words, but by being himself removed from the object or having the object removed from him. He is kept out of spaces he wishes to enter by being pulled back. He is given one thing when he wants another. His self-determinism is continually interrupted thus in his efforts to explore, obtain or get rid of matter, energy, space or time. From these early interruptions the child builds up a long chain of experiences of interruption, not simply by speech but by barriers and obstacles in the physical universe. If he has not been thoroughly interrupted when a child, he can analytically assess later interruptions, but if he has been handled and denied so as to interrupt him when he is young, his power of decision is inhibited, to say nothing of his power of speech and thought. 

Recalling special incidents as requested in this list brings them into the light and takes the power from these chains of interruptions. 

Can you recall a time when:

1.	An object resisted you and you overcame it.

2.	You couldn’t move and then succeeded in getting away.
	
3. 	Somebody took something out of your hands and finished it. 
4. 	Your physical action was interrupted. 
5. 	A machine did not start. 
6. 	Somebody jumped at you unexpectedly. 
7. 	You were told a ghost story. 
8. 	You had to give up a career. 
9. 	Somebody touched your mouth. 
10. 	You tried to raise your hand and were blocked. 
11. 	You found the road was closed. 
12. 	You couldn’t get something into something. 
13. 	You were halted by a friend. 
14. 	Your father showed you how it was really done. 
15. 	Somebody made you take care of something. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

16. 	It was demonstrated you were putting it to the wrong use. 
17. 	You were corrected “for your own good”. 

18. 	You knew somebody who had a mania for using only the right word. 
19. 	You were “helped” by having your sentence finished. 
20. 	You couldn’t go at the last minute. 
21. 	You knew somebody who corrected the words you used for songs. 
22. 	You weren’t permitted to cry. 
23. 	Noise got on somebody’s nerves. 
24. 	You couldn’t finish it for want of time. 
25. 	You had to be patient. 
26. 	You couldn’t go just then. 
27. 	You were going but you were stopped. 
28. 	Somebody tried to stop you but you kept on anyway. 
29. 	You used it just as pleased. 
30. 	You had not been halted. 
31. 	You got loose and continued. 
32. 	You yelled anyway. 
33. 	You completed it despite somebody. 
34. 	You had to stop bolting your food. 
35. 	You drank all you pleased. 
36. 	You weren’t supposed fight. 
37. 	Somebody checked a muscular reaction. 
38. 	You were very enthusiastic and somebody cooled it quickly. 
39. 	You went on in spite of weariness. 
40. 	You broke a habit. 
41. 	You found somebody wasn’t as strong as you had supposed. 
42. 	You discovered you could have it after all. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

43. 	You found the real motive was selfishness. 
44. 	You got out from under domination. 
45. 	You discovered it wasn’t for your own good after all. 
46. 	You stopped yourself from interrupting somebody. 
47. 	You found other people weren’t wiser than you. 

48. 	Everybody thought you were wrong but discovered you had been right. 
49. 	You attained the goal anyway. 
50. 	You discovered another person wasn’t worth having. 
51. 	You restrained an urge to destroy something. 
52. 	You disobeyed the law and got away with it.
53. 	Lightning didn’t strike you. 
54. 	You fixed something. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 11

Invalidation

Aberrated individuals use two distinct and very aberrated methods of controlling others. The first consists of forcing the other person to do exactly what is desired with the mechanism of recrimination and denial of friendship or support unless instant compliance takes place. In other words, “You do exact what I say or I am no ally of yours”. This is outright domination. Additionally, it seeks by anger and outright criticism, accusations, and other mechanisms to pound another individual into submission by making him less. The second method might be called domination by nullification. This is covert and quit often the person upon whom it is exerted remains unsuspecting beyond the fact that he knows he is very unhappy. This is the coward’s method of domination. The person using it feels that he is less than the individual upon whom he is using it and has no the honesty or fortitude to admit the fact to himself. He the begins, much as termites gnaw away a foundation, as in California, to pull the other individual “down to size”, using small carping criticisms. The one who is seeking to dominate strike heavily at the point of pride and capability of his target and yell if at any moment the target challenges the nullifier, the person using the mechanism claims he is doing so solely out of assistance and friendship, or disavows completely that it has been done. Of the two methods, the latter is far more damaging. A person using this method seeks to reduce another individual down to a point where he can be completely controlled and will not stop until he has reduced the target into a confused apathy. The lowest common denominator of nullification could be called “invalidation”. The nullifier seeks to invalidate not only the person but the skills and knowledge of his target. The possessions of the target are said to be not quite as important as they might be. The experiences of the person being nullified a minimized. The target’s looks, strength, physical capabilities and potentialities are also invalidated. All this may be done so covertly that it appears to be “in the best interest of” the target. The nullifier seeks to “improve” the person being invalidated. 

The first question of this list should be, of course, how many people have you known who have sought consistently under the mask of seeking to aid you to tear you apart as a person, and reduce your future, your hopes, your goals, and the very energy of your life.

Can you recall a time when:

1. 	A person much smaller than you resented your size. 
2. 	A person bigger than you made you feel inferior. 
3. 	A person would not let you finish something. 
4. 	An object was too much for you. 
5. 	You found a space too big.
6. 	You were pushed back because you were too small. 
7. 	You didn’t make the team. 
8. 	You found you were adequate. 
9. 	You found somebody had lied about how bad you were. 
10. 	You discovered you had been right, after all. 
11. 	You found your decision would have been best. 
12. 	You solved a problem nobody else could do. 

13. 	You discovered there were homelier people in the world than you. 
14. 	You found you could ignore somebody’s opinion. 

15. 	You found somebody else thought you really had done something good. 
16. 	You were admired your looks. 
17. 	You overcame a machine. 
18. 	You accomplished arduous journey. 

19. 	You discovered somebody who slurred was dishonest in other ways. 

20. 	You found yourself bigger and more powerful than an animal. 
21. 	You discovered your competence. 
22. 	You bested somebody thoroughly. 
23. 	An enemy cried quarter. 
24. 	You drew blood somebody else. 
25. 	You took the lion’s share and kept it. 
26. 	You made your weight felt. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

27. 	You were too heavy for somebody. 
28. 	You killed something. 
29. 	You won. 
30. 	You were able to get away from somebody who invalidated you. 
31. 	You discovered you were right and the old man was wrong. 
32. 	You found you could get better. 
33. 	You got well when they had no hope for you. 
34. 	You surprised yourself with your own endurance. 
35. 	You discovered you did understand. 
36. 	You did a job nobody believed possible. 
37. 	You were proud of your self today. 

 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

LIST 12

The Elements

Man’s primary foe in his environment is the weather. Houses, stoves, clothes, and even food, in the degree that it furnishes body warmth and mobility, are weapons of defense against storm, cold, heat and night. 

Can you recall a time when:

1. 	You bested a storm.
2. 	You enjoyed thunder.
3. 	You had fun in snow
4. 	You enjoyed the sun shine. 
5. 	Everyone else said it too hot but you enjoyed it. 
6. 	You bested an area of water. 
7. 	The rain was soothing. 
8. 	You were glad it was a cloudy day. 
9. 	The wind excited you. 
10. 	The night was soft. 
11. 	You were glad to see the sun. 
12. 	The weather was friendly.
13. 	You bested some surf.
14. 	The air was exhilarating. 
15. 	You were glad of the season. 
16. 	You got warm after being too cold. 
17. 	A dawn excited you. 
18. 	You felt you owned stars. 
19. 	You were excited over a  hailstone. 
20. 	You discovered the temperature of snow flakes. 
21. 	The dew was bright. 

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

22. 	A soft fog rolled. 
24. 	It was terrible outside and you were snug in your house. 
25. 	The wind felt good. 
26. 	You lived through it. 
27. 	You discovered you liked your own climate. 
28. 	You were glad to see spring. 
29. 	You felt you could best the winds of the world. 
30. 	You admired a storm.
31. 	You enjoyed lightning.

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

SPECIAL SESSION LISTS

If Recalling A Certain Thing Made You Uncomfortable

It may be, as you recall incidents in your life, that you are rendered uncomfortable. There are several ways of overcoming this. If actual physical pain is part of the situation you have recalled, do not try to force yourself further into it, but concentrate on later incidents which gradually get you back up to present time. These questions will assist you to do that.

1. 	Recall a pleasant incident which happened later. 
2. 	Recall what you were doing this time last year. 
3. 	Recall a moment when you were really enjoying yourself. 
4. 	Recall what you were doing this time last month. 
5. 	Recall what you were doing yesterday. 
6. 	Recall something pleasant that happened today. 
	Recall these things consecutively again.

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

If no physical pain was included but sorrow was, recall the following:

1. 	The next time after that you acquired something you liked.
2. 	Recall something you have now which you enjoy.
3. 	Recall something you wanted a long time and finally got. 
4. 	Recall the time somebody was very nice to you. 
5. 	Recall the last money you got. 
6. 	Recall eating dinner last night. 
7. 	Recall eating today.

Recall all of these incidents over again with all available perceptics.

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

If you merely became uncomfortable without great sorrow or physical pain, but simply wanted to avoid the recollection, use the following list: 
1. 	Recall the incident again in its entirety from first to last. 
2. 	Recall the incident once more. 
3. 	Recall an earlier incident similar to it. 
4. 	Recall an incident earlier. 
5. 	Recall the earliest incident that you can get like it. 

6. 	Recall all these incidents, one after the other, in their entirety. 

7. 	Recall all the incidents again, one after the other, from the earliest to the latest. 
8. 	Recall all these incidents again. 

9. 	Go over the chain of similar incidents and later ones on up to present time. 

10.	Recall a pleasant incident which has happened in the last few days. Get all possible                        	perceptics on it. 
11.	Recall what you were doing an hour ago.

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

This usually stabilizes any of the above conditions:

1. 	Recall a time which really seems real to you. 

2. 	Recall a time when you felt real affinity for someone. 

3. 	Recall a time when someone was in good communication with you.

4. 	Recall a time when felt deep affinity somebody else. 

5. 	Recall a time when knew you were really communicating to somebody. 

6. 	Recall a time when several people agreed with you completely.

7. 	Recall a time when you were in agreement with somebody else. 

8. 	Recall a time within the last two days when you felt affectionate. 

9. 	Recall a time in the last two days when somebody felt affection for you. 

10. 	Recall a time in the last two days when you were in good communication with 	someone. 

11. 	Recall a time in the last two days which really seems real to you. 

12. 	Recall a time in the last two days when you were in good communication with people. 

Recall several incidents of each kind.

Sight, Smell, Touch, Color, Tone, External Motion, Emotion,
Loudness. Body Position, Sound, Weight. Personal Motion

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968
Issue II
Remimeo
All Dianetic
Courses

ARC STRAIGHT WIRE

(Corrects HCO B 30 June 1962 and also
in the HDA Course book. Corrects p. 102
[soft-cover edition] of Self Analysis.)
(Paste over HDA Course page 15.)
(Corrects earlier HCO B of same date & title.)

The correct commands for ARC Straight Wire, as researched and as successful in test in cracking even neurotic cases, with one command added to modernize it, were and are:

Recall a time that was really real to you.

Recall a time you were in good communication with someone.

Recall a time you really felt affinity for someone.

Recall a time you knew you understood something.

Run ONLY on a Meter.

Run ONLY to Floating Needle and NOT beyond. (Don’t abruptly cut pc’s Comm.)

A true fact is that ARC always must precede an ARC Break.

Also ARC = Understanding and Time.

A = Space and the willingness to occupy the same space of.

R = Mass or agreement.

C = Energy or Recognition.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
								Founder 
LRH:jp.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

9 OCTOBER 1971 RA
REVISED 8 AUGUST 1973
Remimeo                     REVISED & REISSUED 28 JUNE 1974 AS BTB
Level 0                                          ( REVISION IN ITALICS )
Chksht
Level VI                            HCO BULLETIN OF 9 OCTOBER 1971 R
Chksht                                                      SAME TITLE

Auditor Drills Series No. 1RA

ARC STRAIGHTWIRE DRILLS

	WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON CORRECT APPLICATION OF SELF ANALYSIS PROCESSING. 

PURPOSE: To improve the quality of auditing by familiarizing Auditors with the exact procedure of each auditing action through the use of drills. 

HOW TO USE: These drills are in order by levels . The first number indicates the level taught on. Those that begin with TR 00 - ( drill No . ) are Level Zero Drills . The double zero is to differentiate the drills from TR 0-4. Unbullbaited drills end in odd numbers; and bullbaited end in even numbers. 

	Most drills are done within the basic formats as laid out. Any that don’t will be fully covered in the specific drills themselves. 

	Simply start with the first actions and work through the drills in the order given as it’s the same order as the ARC ST. Wire Expanded Grade BTB 4 Jan 72 RA. Each drill is done until you know you can do it flawlessly, even while being bullbaited. 

	If a student has trouble on a drill, locate whether the student has a misunderstood or has a skipped gradient and handle either or both with standard Study Tech. This can lead back to outnesses on basics such as TRs, codes or scales. Whatever it is, find out why and handle. 

NOTE: If coach upset occurs because of restimulation, fruit words should be inserted in the place of the process Key Words, for bullbaited drills only. 

FORMAT FOR UNBULLBAITED DRILLS

NAME: Auditing on a doll unbullbaited.

COMMANDS: As for each separate process. 
PURPOSE: To train the student to be able to coordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action with the actual doingness of auditing. 

POSITION: Student seated at a table with E-Meter, worksheets and auditing forms as needed. In the chair opposite the student is a doll occupying the position of the PC. (During drill the coach is seated or standing beside the Auditor. He does not take the position of the doll.) 

TRAINING STRESS: This drill is coached. The student sets up the E-Meter and worksheets exactly as in a session - as follows: 

1. Set up E-Meter as for E-Meter drills. 

2. Set up shield to prevent TA and admin being seen by PC (doll). 

3. Have extra pens under the E-Meter. 

4. Have C/S face down between the bottom of the E-Meter and the table. 

5. Have W/S and Lists readily available in sequence required for the session. 

	Auditor starts the session and runs a standard session with the particular auditing action being taken up on the doll, keeping full session admin and using all standard procedures of the auditing action. Coach watches drill and points out any outnesses noted giving a”that’s it”and a re-start. Outnesses should be handled one at a time until none exist.. 

	The drill is done on a steeper and steeper gradient until the student can very quickly do the action correctly. 

	The drill is passed when the student can do the drill flawlessly with good TRs 0-4, correct procedure and commands, without comm lags or confusion; ie. flawlessly! 

FORMAT TO BE USED FOR BULLBAITED DRILLS

NAME: Auditing _____________ Bullbaited. 

COMMANDS: As for each separate auditing action. 

PURPOSE: To train the student to be able to coordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action in a drill similar to a real auditing session and thereby become flawless in applying it. 

POSITION: Student seated at a table with E-Meter and Auditor forms, as needed. In the chair opposite the Auditor is a doll as PC. Coach sits beside doll and is the bullbaiter and gives answers as PC, not about his own case. 

TRAINING STRESS: The drill is the same as for auditing on a doll except that the “PC”coach bullbaits the student Auditor using “fruit”answers during the session in an attempt to throw the student off session. On any list, the coach squeezes the cans to simulate reads. He still uses “fruit”answers (six apples, blue pears) when asked to speak, but as the student Auditor reads off the list items (eg. L3RF) he squeezes the cans for reads. 

	When bullbaiting an auditing action the coach should THROW IN VARIOUS SIGNS OF PC OUT OF SESSIONNESS. (Per HCOB on Good Indicators and BTB on Bad Indicators.) The student Auditor must: 

	1. 	Obnose the out of sessionness. 

	2. 	Align this to the process run. 

	3. 	Handle. 

	An example is, on a Listing and Nulling procedure an out of sessionness is observed, the Auditor queries and follows through with an L4BRA at once. (An L4BRA is a repair list.) 

	The PC bullbaiter can throw in situations, originate troubles or gains, be tricky, etc. But he must never lose sight of HCOB 24 May 1968 “Coaching”, especially the second paragraph - “Coach with reality”. 

	Once the coach throws out a situation, etc. he must allow the student Auditor to carry it out, and handle the situation before the coach calls a new situation. 
	Stress is on training the student Auditor to have his TRs 0 - 4 in on the bullbaiter. 

	The coach (bullbaiter) does the “start”, flunking or “That’s it”. Flunks are given for any improper commands, procedure, comm lags, break in TRs or improper session admin. 

	Each drill is to be done thoroughly, building up the speed of Auditor commands and actions. (“It’s the number of auditing commands per unit of auditing time which makes gains in a session.” LRH) 

	When the student Auditor has done these steps to his satisfaction, he gets a starrate checkout. The drill is passed when the student can do the drill flawlessly with excellent TRs 0 - 4, correct procedure and commands, without comm lags or confusion. These are the drills that train the student Auditor to handle all the elements in a session, so be exact and be real.

NOTE: Clearing of commands is per BTB 2 May 72R and other Bulletins and PLs on the subject (ie. clearing each word of command backwards).                                         

TR 00-1 	“REMEMBER SOMETHING”  UNBULLBAITED. 
TR 00-2 	“REMEMBER SOMETHING”  BULLBAITED.

		Ref. Dianetics  ‘55  

STEPS:                          

1.	R- factor  to  PC  that  you  are  going  to run ARC Straightwire Expanded processes.Clear “ARC”, “What does ARC mean to you?” Then clear the words “Straightwire and expanded” in the same way. Use a Scientology and regular dictionary do clear up any the PC doesn’t know or has confusion on. Make sure the PC understands what is going to happen and is happy to be run on the processes, and that a good Auditor - PC- Auditor Comm Cycle is in. 

2.	Tell  the  PC “The  first  process  of  ARC  SW  Expanded  is  a repetitive process.” Clear the word “repetitive”so that the PC understands how the process is to be run. Tell the PC that when he has carried out the auditing command he should tell you what he recalled or thought of, not just an answer like “yes”to the command (ref. HCOB 30 June 62). This applies to all processes of this level and PC must understand this. 

3. 	Clear the command with the PC - “What is the definition of the word ___________ ?”                       	Clear the word “something”first - then the word “remember”. 

4. 	Run the process repetitively, same command over and over, to F/N Cog VGIs. 

TR 00-3 	“RECALL A TIME”  UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00-4 	“RECALL A TIME”  BULLBAITED 

		Ref: Staff Auditors Conference of 18 Feb 59

STEPS: 

l. 	R-factor - “We are going to run an ARC SW process. This is a repetitive process.”

2. 	Clear  the  command - “What  is  the  definition  of  the  word __________ ?” clear             	“Time, A, Recall” in that order.

	Be sure to use the Scientology Dictionary definition of”recall”. 
3. 	Run the process repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs.
TR 00-5 	COMM RECALL PROCESS   UNBULLBAITED. 
TR 00-6 	COMM RECALL PROCESS   BULLBAITED. 

		Ref: HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process

STEPS: 

1. 	R- factor - “We are going to run a process called Comm Recall Process. “Make sure PC understands that “Comm” is short for “Communication”. Tell PC - “This is a repetitive process.”

2. 	Clear the command word by word backwards as in the above drills. 

3 . 	Run the process command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs . 

TR 00-7 	THE ONLY BASIC AFFINITY PROCESS  UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00-8 	THE ONLY BASIC AFFINITY PROCESS  BULLBAITED 

		Ref: HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process

STEPS: 

1. 	R-factor - “We are going to run a process called The Only Basic Affinity Process.”

2. 	Tell PC “This process has three commands, each is run separately in a repetitive               	manner.”

3. 	Clear the first command as in the earlier drills. 

4. 	Run the first process command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs. 

5. 	R-factor - “Now we’ll run the second command.”

6. 	Clear the second command as in the earlier drills. 

7. 	Run the second command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs. 

8. 	R-factor - “Now we’ll run the third command.”

9. 	Clear the third command as in the earlier drills. 

10. 	Run the third command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs. 

TR 00 -11 	PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE  UNBULLBAITED

TR 00 -12 	PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE  BULLBAITED

		Ref: HCOB 16 Feb 59 HGC Processes for those trained in engram running or            		trained in these processes. 
STEPS: 

1. 	R- factor - “We  are  going  to  run  a  process  called “Past and Future Experience”. This process has two commands which are run alternately, one after the other, over and over.

2. 	Clear the first command as in earlier drills. Then clear the second command . 
3. 	Run the process commands alternately (1-2-1-2, etc. ) over and over until the PC has            	F/N Cog VGIs. 

TR 00-13   	FORGETTING - 6 WAY BRACKET   UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00-14  	FORGETTING - 6 WAY BRACKET   BULLBAITED 

		Ref: HCOB 8 April 58 A Pair of Processes
		PAB 143

STEPS: 

1 . 	R-f actor - “We are going to run a process called ‘Forgetting’. It has six commands,            	each of which is run by itself repetitively.”

2. 	Clear the first command as in earlier drills. PC must understand that he is to recall when he himself forgot something. 

3 . 	Run the first command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs . 

4.	R-factor. “Now we’ll run the second command.”

5 . 	Clear the second command. 

6. 	Run the second command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs. 

7. 	Repeat steps 4 - 7 on each command 3 through 6 in turn ( R - factor each time refers to “third command”, “fourth command”, etc. ) 

TR 00-15  	CAUSE ELEMENTARY STRAIGHTWIRE  UNBULLBAITED

TR 00-16  	CAUSE ELEMENTARY STRAIGHTWIRE  BULLBAITED

		Ref: HCOB 9 Mar 60 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, step two HGC allowed                                  		processes. 
		HCOB 20 April 60 Processes.

STEPS:

1. 	R - factor - “We  are  going  to  run  a  process  called  ‘Cause Elementary Straightwire’. Clear the words “Cause” and “Elementary”. This process has three commands; each is run by itself repetitively. Itself repetitively. 

2 . 	Clear the first command. 

3. 	Run the first command of the process repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs. 

4. 	R-factor “Now we are going to run the second command.”

5. 	Clear the second command. 
6.	Run the second command of the process repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs. 

7. 	R - factor - “Now we are going to run the third command.”

8. 	Clear the third command. 

9. 	Run the third command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs. 

TR 00-17  	DUPLICATION STRAIGHTWIRE  UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00-18  	DUPLICATION STRAIGHTWIRE  BULLBAITED

		Ref: HCOB 9 Mar 60 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, step two HGC Allowed       		Processes. 

STEPS: 

1. 	R-factor - “We are going to run a process called ‘Duplication Straightwire’.” Clear                     	the  word “Duplication”  with  the  PC.
 	“This  process  has  three  commands ,  each  run  by  itself repetitively.”

2. 	Clear the first command.

3. 	Run the first command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs.

4. 	R - factor “Now we are going to run the second command.”

5. 	Clear the second command.

6. 	Run the second command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs.

7. 	R - Factor “Now we are going to run the third command.”

8. 	Clear the third command.

9. 	Run the third command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs.

TR 00-19 	KNOW TO MYSTERY RECALL PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 00-20	KNOW TO MYSTERY RECALL PROCESS BULLBAITED

	       	Ref: HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process
                	Scn 0-8 Expanded Know to Mystery Scale

STEPS:

1. 	R- factor “We  are  going  to  run  the ‘Know to Mystery Recall Process’.  This process is used with a scale called the Know to Mystery Scale.  It has a number of commands, each of which is run by itself repetitively.”

2. 	Clear the first command.

3. 	Run the first command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs.

4. 	R- factor - “Now we are going to run the second command.”

5. 	Clear the second command.

6. 	Run the second command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs.
7. 	Do  steps  4  -  6  on  each  command  in  turn  3  through  13 ( R - factor  on  each                       	matches  the  number  of  the  command”third command”,”fourth command”, etc. Also             	that command is the one cleared and then run).

TR 00-21 	SELF ANALYSIS LISTS   UNBULLBAITED
TR 00-22 	SELF ANALYSIS LISTS   BULLBAITED

		Ref: Book - Self Analysis
		PAB 46

R-FACTOR TO AUDITOR: It is very important that the Auditor have a fuIl understanding of the purpose and technique of Self Analysis processing. This data is contained in the book and must be thoroughly studied with particular attention to the “Processing Section.”

THESE PROCESSES PREPARE THE PC’S CASE FOR AUDITING ON DIANETICS. In running these lists the Auditor directs the PC to moments action took place, not when somebody said it took place or merely the concept that it did happen. YOU GET THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL OCCURRENCE. Each time you ask the PC to recall an incident of a certain kind you then ask, after he recalls it, to pay attention to a certain sense channel which was present during the time he experienced it. The circular disc is provided for the purpose of directing which sense to pay particular attention to. You place the disc over the question you are going to ask and the sense perception at the top is asked for. When you go to the next list question you move the disc over it and rotate it one sense counter-clock- wise so that you have a new sense to ask for. 

	When you go to a new page of questions in the book you turn over the disc so that you have a new set of senses to ask for. If you don’t have a disc use the same senses as listed on the bottom of each page and tick them off one after the other as you go along. 

	The Auditor should make sure that the PC speaks aloud the things he is recalling. The preclear’s nod or “yes” to signify that he has recalled something is insufficient. Have him select an actual moment in his life called for by the question. Try to get him to re-sense that moment with the perceptic called for on the disc. 

	If the PC finds it extremely difficult to recall any one question in these lists, simply pass over it and go to the next question. You can go over a list more than once if the PC does not reach EP the first time through. 

STEPS: 

1. 	R- factor to PC - “We  are  now  going  to run  the Self Analysis lists from the book Self Analysis. I will be asking you to recall specific incidents in your life. Try to recall the moment it actually occurred, not just the concept that it did occur. When you have recalled it tell me what it is. Then I will ask you to pay particular attention to a certain sense perception in the incident. Try to re-sense that moment with the perceptic called for.”

2. 	Clear the sense perceptics with the PC. 

	Clear “emotion”as that emotion the PC felt at the time of the incident. Clear “loudness” as  the  loudness  of  the  various sounds in the incident. 

Clear “body position” as the position of his own body  at the time the incident occurred. 

	Clear “sound” as those sounds in the incident. 
Clear “weight” as   the   heaviness  of  the  things , including the pull of gravity on the PC and the weight of anything he may actually be supporting in the incident such as his clothes, a ball or and other thing which he is actually holding at the time the incident occurred. 

	Clear “personal  motion” as the motion which the PC himself was undertaking at the          	time the incident occurred. 

	Clear “sight” as what the PC actually saw at the time the incident was taking place. 

	Clear “smell” as what odors were present during the scene he is recalling. 
	
	Clear “touch” as anything he was actually touching at the time with the sensation of         	touch including pressure. 

Clear “colour” as the actual colour contained in the scene called for. 

Clear “tone” as the quality of the sound present when the scene occurred. 

Clear “external motion” as the motion of other people or objects or of energy. 

3. 	Clear the commands for List 1, clearing each word of the basic question backwards.          	“What is the definition of the word ____________?”

	Clear -   “Can you recall a time when _____________ ?”

		 “Can you recall another time when ____________ ?”

		 “Can you recall the earliest time when ____________ ?”

4. 	R- factor to PC “We will clear the additional words to each list question as we go             	along.”

5. 	To PC - “This is the process.”

6. 	Place the disk over the first question. 

7. 	Clear the first question - “What is the definition of the word _________ ?” Clear             	“happy” and “were”. “You” has already been cleared so needn’t be again. In clearing             	the list questions the words that are repeated need only be cleared the first time they             	come up. 

8. 	Ask PC - “Can you recall a time when you were happy?”

9. 	PC answers and Auditor acknowledges.  If PC only nods or says “yes”Auditor asks           	“What was it?”, gets the answer and acknowledges PC. 

10. 	Auditor  says “Try  to  see  what  you  saw  in  the  incident.” ( Or whatever perceptic        	you start with. ) 

11. 	PC indicates he has ,  Auditor acks and then asks  - “What did you ‘see’ at that time?”

12. 	PC answers and auditor acks. 

13. 	Auditor asks PC - “Can you recall another time when you were happy ?”

14. 	PC answers and auditor acks and then says - “Try to ‘see’ what you saw in the                	incident.”
15. 	PC indicates that he has, Auditor acks and then asks “What did you ‘see’ at that time?”

16. 	PC answers and Auditor acks. 

17. 	Auditor  asks  PC - “Can you recall the earliest time when you were happy?”

18. 	PC answers and Auditor acks and then says - “Try to ‘see’ what you saw in the                   	incident.”
19. 	PC indicates he has, auditor acks and then asks “What did you ‘see’ at that time?”

20. 	PC answers and auditor acks. 

21. 	Auditor  moves  the  disc  down  to  question 2 and rotates the disc one perceptic 	counter - clockwise. 

22.	Clear the new words that are in question No.2 - “What  is  the definition of    _______?” (Clear - something, constructing, finished, just, had). 

23. 	Auditor  asks  PC - “Can  you  recall  a  time when you had just finished constructing        	something?”

24. 	PC answers by telling auditor what it is and auditor acks. 

25. 	Auditor says to PC - “Recall the odors that you smelled in the incident .”

26. 	PC indicates he has, Auditor acks and then asks - “What odors did you smell at that           	time?”

27. 	Auditor  continues  as  above  handling  each  list  question- by rotating the disc for each new question and asking for an incident, another incident and the earliest incident that he can recall. The questions to direct the PC to re - sense the different perceptions are not  all the same exact patter as each must communicate as itself. The questions - would be:
 
SIGHT: 	“Try to ‘see’ what you saw in the incident.”               				“What did you ‘see’ at that time?”

SMELL.:     	“Recall the odors that you smelled in the incident”
		“What odors did you smell at that time?”

TOUCH: 	“Recall what you were touching in the incident.”
		“What were you touching at that time?;’

COLOR: 	“Try to perceive the colors in the incident.”
		“What colors did you perceive at that time?”

TONE: 	“Try to contact the tone of the sounds present in the incident.”
		“What tones were present at that time?”

EXTERNAL	“Try to perceive the external motion in the incident.”
MOTION: 	“What external motion did you perceive at that time?”

EMOTION: 	“Try to recall and feel again the emotion you felt in the incident.”
		“What emotion did you feel at that time?”

LOUDNESS:	“Pay  particular  attention  to  the  loudness of the sounds in the incident.”
		“What  was  the  loudness  of  the  sounds  at  that time?”

BODY      	“Pay  particular  attention  to  your  own  body position  in  the                    POSITION:       incident.”
	         	“What was your body position at that time?”

SOUND: 	“Pay  particular  attention  to  the  sounds  in  the incident.”
		“What sounds were there at that time?”

WEIGHT: 	“Pay  attention  to  the  weight  of  things  in  the incident.”
		“What was the weight of things at that time?”

PERSONAL 	“Pay  attention  to  your  personal  motion  in  the incident.”
MOTION: 	“What personal motion was there at that time?”

	Each list is run to F/N Cog VGIs. You would then go on to the next list. 

	In List 2 each list question has sub-questions which are also asked, such as - “Can you recall an incident which happened a long time ago?” “What year was it?” “What was the month?” “What was the date?” “What was the hour?” You would then direct him to pay particular attention to one of the senses and so on as in the earlier list. 

	All new words must be cleared as you go along, clearing the words of the questions backwards. 

	When starting List 5 give the PC an R-factor: 

	“In answering these questions particular attention should be paid to happier incidents. (See preface to List 5)

TR 00-23 	ARC STRAIGHTWIRE TRIPLES   UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00-24 	ARC STRAIGHTWIRE TRIPLES  BULLBAITED 

		Ref: HCOB 27 Sept 68 ARC Straightwire

STEPS: 

1. 	R- factor - “We are going to run an ARC SW Expanded process called ‘ARC SW              	Triples’. This process has three sets of commands with 4 commands in each set. Each              	set will be run separately with the commands in that set run alternately, one after the             	other, over and over.”

2. 	Clear   the   first   set   of   commands  starting  with  the  first command clearing each          	word going backwards through the command . 

3. 	Run the first set of commands alternately, over and over 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, etc. ) to F/N             	Cog VGIs. End off the series of commands for that flow when F/N Cog VGIs is                	reached. 

4. 	R - factor “Now we are going to run the second set of  commands.”

5. 	Clear the commands of Flow 2 in the same way as in Step 2. 

6. 	Run the second Flow in the same way as in Step 3 to F/N Cog VGIs. 

7. 	R-factor “Now we are going to run the third set of commands” 

8. 	Clear the commands of Flow 3 as in Step 2. 

9. 	Run Flow 3 as in Step 3. 

TR 00-25 	HAVINGNESS    UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00-26 	HAVINGNESS    BULLBAITED 

		Ref: HCOB 3 Dec 56 B. Scn - HAA Techniques
 		PAB 54

STEPS: 

1. 	R- factor “We  are  going  to  run  the  Havingness  process  for ARC SW.” Clear the            	word “Havingness”. “This process has three commands; each is run by itself                           	repetitively.”
(NOTE: As with the other processes PC is to tell you what he found when he did the command. ) 

2. 	Clear the first command. 

3. 	Run the first command repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs. 

4 . 	R- factor - “Now we are going to run the second command.”

5. 	Clear the command of Flow 2. 

6. 	Run Flow 2 repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs. 

7. 	R-factor - “Now we are going to run the third command.”

8. 	Clear the command of Flow 3. 

9 . 	Run Flow 3 repetitively to F/N Cog VGIs . 

	Revised & Reissued as BTB
	By Flag Mission 1234
	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
	2nd: Molly Harlow

	Authorized by AVU

	for the
BDCS:SW:AL:MH:al 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N 

15  NOVEMBER 1976
ISSUE I
Remimeo
CANCELS BTB 4 JANUARY 1972RB
“0-IV EXPANDED GRADE 
PROCESSES - TRIPLES
PART A ARC STRAIGHTWIRE”

( Revisisions in script. )

O-IV EXPANDED GRADE PROCESSES - QUADS 
PART A 
ARC STRAIGHTWIRE          

	This Bulletin gives a checklist of the Expanded Quad Grade Process Commands.  It is not all the possible processes for this level.  If more are needed to attain full EP for the level,  additional processes can be found in LRH Bulletins, Books, Tapes, PABs and other issues.

	Each process is run to its full End Phenomena of F/N, Cog, VGIs.  Any previously run are rehabbed or completed and and missing flows run.

	A copy of this checklist is placed in the folder of a pc being run on Expanded Grades and the processes checked off with the date each is run to EP.

	On any of these processes where the pc answers only” yes” or that he did it,  find out what it was by asking” What was it?”  This keeps in the itsa line from pc to auditor.  (Reference HCOB 30 June 62.)

	This Bulletin does not replace Source data.

1.	REMEMBER SOMETHING
	Ref:  	Dianetics 55 (page 129 in 1971 Edition)	

	“Remember something.”  Repetitive to EP.				__________

2.	RECALL A TIME
	Ref:   	Staff Auditors Conference of 16 Feb 59 
		(refers to HCOB of 16 Feb 59 HGC 
		processes for those trained in engram 
		running or trained in these processes).
		
	“Recall a time.”  Repetitive to EP.					__________

3.	COMM RECALL PROCESS
	Ref:  	HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process.

	“Recall a communication.”  	Repetitive to EP.			__________		

4. 	THE ONLY BASIC AFFINITY PROCESS 
	Ref:	HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process. 

	“What would you like to confront?”
					Repetitive to EP.			__________ 

	“What would another like to confront?” 
					Repetitive to EP. 			__________

	“What would others like to confront?” 
					Repetitive to EP.			__________ 

	“What would you like to confront in yourself?”
					Repetitive to EP.			__________

4A. 	EXHAUSTION 
	Ref: 	HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process. 

	“Recall exhaustion.” 
					Repetitive to EP.			__________ 

5. 	PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE 
	Ref: 	HCOB 16 Feb 59 HGC Processes for those 
		trained in engram running or trained in 
		these processes. 
		HCOB 16 Feb 59 Staff
		Auditors Conference. 

	“What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” 

	“What part of the future would you be willing to experience?” 
					Run Alternately to EP.		__________ 

6.	FORGETTING - 6 WAY BRACKET
	Ref: 	HCOB 8 Apr 58 A Pair of Processes. 
		PAB 143. 

	“Recall (or think of) something you wouldn’t mind” 

	Run the bracket in sequence to EP. 

	1.”Forgetting yourself.” 						__________

	2.”Another person forgetting.” 					__________

	3.”Forgetting about another.” 					__________
		
	4.”Another forgetting about you.” 					__________

	5.”Other people forgetting.” 						__________

	6.”Another person forgetting about another person.”
										__________

7 . 	CAUSE ELEMENTARY STRAIGHTWIRE
	Ref: 	HCOB 9 Mar 60 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, 
		step two HGC allowed processes.
		HCOB 20 Apr 60 Processes.

	“What would it be all right for another to make forgotten?” 
					Repetitive to EP. 			__________

	“What would it be all right for you to make forgotten?” 
					Repetitive to EP . 			__________

	“What would it be all right for others to make forgotten?” 
					Repetitive to EP . 			__________

	“What would it be alright for you to make forgotten about 
	 yourself ?”
					Repetitive to EP.			__________

8 . 	DUPLICATION STRAIGHTWIRE
	Ref: 	HCOB 9 Mar 60 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, 
		step two HGC allowed processes

	“What would another permit to have happen again ?” 
					Repetitive to EP. 			__________

	“What would you permit to have happen again ?”
					Repetitive to EP. 			__________

	“What would others permit to have happen again ?” 
					Repetitive to EP.			__________ 

	“What would you permit to have happen to yourself again ?”
					Repetitive to EP.			__________

9.	KNOW TO MYSTERY RECALL PROCESS 
	Ref: 	HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process 
		Scn 0-8 Expanded Know to Mystery Scale

	“Recall an unconsciousness.” 	to EP				__________

	“Recall waiting.”             		to EP				__________

	“Recall a mystery.”           		to EP				__________

	“Recall sex.”                 		to EP				__________

	“Recall eating”              		to EP				__________

	“Recall a symbol.”            		to EP				__________

	“Recall thinking.”            		to EP				__________

	“Recall an effort.”           		to EP				__________

	“Recall an emotion.”         		to EP				__________

	“Recall looking.”            		to EP				__________

	“Recall knowing about.”      		to EP				__________

	“Recall not knowing.”        		to EP				__________

	“Recall knowing.”            		to EP				__________
10.	SELF ANALYSIS LISTS
	Ref: 	PAB 46
		Book Self Analysis (Run per instructions in book.)

	List One.                    		to EP				__________

	List Two.                    		to EP				__________

	List Three: 	Time Sense       	to EP				__________

			Sight            		to EP				__________

			Relative Sizes 	to EP				__________

			Sound            		to EP				__________

			Olfactory        	to EP				__________

            		Touch            		to EP				__________

			Personal Emotion 	to EP				__________

			Organic Sensation 	to EP				__________

			Motion Personal 	to EP				__________

			Motion External 	to EP				__________

			Body Position 	to EP				__________
	
	List Four.                    		to EP				__________

	List Five.                    		to EP				__________

	List Six.                     		to EP				__________

	List Seven.                   		to EP				__________

	List Eight.                   		to EP				__________

	List Nine.                    		to EP				__________

	List Ten.                     		to EP				__________

	List Eleven.                  		to EP				__________

	List Twelve.                  		to EP				__________

11.	ARC STRAIGHTWIRE TRIPLES
	Ref: 	HCOB 27 Sept 68 ARC Straight Wire

	SW 	Fl. 	“Recall a time that was really to you.” 

			“Recall a time someone was in 
			 good communication with you.” 
			“Recall a time someone really 
			 felt affinity for you.” 

			“Recall a time anothor knew 
			 he/she understood you.” 

						to EP				__________ 

	SW.	F2.	“Recall a time you were in good 
			 communication with someone.” 

			“Recall a time you really felt 
			 affinity for someone” 

			“Recall a time you knew you 
			 understood someone.” 

						to EP 				__________

	SW.	 F3. 	“Recall a time that was really  
			 real for others.” 

			“Recall a time another was in 
			 communication with others.” 

			“Recall a time another really 
			 felt affinity for others.” 

						to EP				__________

	SW.	F0.	“Recall a time you were really 
			 real to yourself.”

			“Recall a time you were in good 
			 communication with yourself.”

			“Recall a time you really felt 
			 affinity for yourself.”

			“Recall a time you knew 
			 you understood yourself.”

						to EP				__________

12. 	HAVINGNESS
	Ref: 	HCOB 3 Dec 56 B. Scn - HAA Techniques
		PAB 54

	SWH 	F1. 	“Look around here and find something 
				 that is really real to you.” 

						to EP				__________

	SWH 	F2. 	“Look around here and find something 
				 that would be really real to another.” 

						to EP 				__________

	SWH 	F3. 	“Look around here and find something 
				 that would be really real to others.” 

						to EP 				__________

	SWH 	F0.	“Look around here and find something 
				 that you could make really real to yourself.”

						to EP				__________

Reissued as BTB
by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd:  Molly Harlow

Revised by FMO 1689 I/C
for Tr & Serv Aide

Approved by Snr C/S Flag, CS-5

Authorized by AVU
and LRH Pers Com

for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:KU:DM:JE:JG:PD:AL:MH:lf
Copyright © 1973, 1974, 1976
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

R2-31: BEINGNESS PROCESSING

Exerpted from the Book: Creation of Human Ability

The cardinal rule where mental or physical compulsions are concerned follows: WHATEVER THE THETAN IS DOING OBSESSIVELY OR COMPULSIVELY, HAVE HIM DO IT ON A SELF-DETERMINED BASIS.

This applies to machines, habits, twitches, etc.

There is a gradient scale of exteriorization which could be described as follows: first, the thetan without contact With a universe then a thetan in full contact with a universe then a thetan in contact with part of a universe, who considers the remainder of the universe barred to him then a thetan in a universe without any contact with any part of the universe then a thetan unknowingly in contact with a large part of a universe. The first condition would be a true Static, the last condition is called colloquially in Scientology, ‘buttered all over the universe. As it is with a universe such as the physical universe, so it is with physical bodies. The thetan who has already gone through the cycle on the universe itself may be in contact with a physical body in the same order. At first he would be without association with a physical body then with occasional contact with bodies then with a fixed contact on one body, but exteriorized then interiorized into a body, but easy to exteriorize then in contact with and interiorized into a body, but withdrawn from the various parts of the body and then obsessively ‘buttered all through the body’ then obsessively and unknowingly drawn down to some small portion of the body, and so forth. This is the gradient scale which includes inversion and then inversion of the inversion. The auditor will discover preclears are very variable in the matter of exteriorization. Some preclears, even when they have a dark field, exteriorize rather easily. Others, after a great deal of work, are still found to be difficult to exteriorize. The matter of exteriorization is the matter of which level of inversion the preclear is in. One of the more difficult levels to work is so inverted that he thinks that a thetan is running him. In other words, here is a thetan functioning in a body and actually running it through various covert communication lines, who yet believes he is a body to such an extent that he considers himself, or any life around him to be some other being. When discussing the matter of a thetan, this preclear is likely to tell the auditor, ‘I’m over there’. This is about the only signal the auditor gets from such a case which tells him that the preclear is being a body, and considers that he is being run by another thetan. Very often an auditor will ‘exteriorize’ such a person, he thinks, only to have the preclear say, ‘I’m over there’. A thetan who knows he is a thetan is always ‘here’ and never ‘there’.

The diagnostic manifestation, however, which the auditor first encounters in any case where he is having difficulty with exteriorization is contained in Beingness. Those on lower levels of inversion are having a great deal of difficulty being anything. Such people are below the level of being a body, therefore it would be far up-scale for this person to be able to be a body with certainty. A person who cannot exteriorize easily must be brought up to the level where he can be a body before he can then be exteriorized from the body. In other words, an auditor exteriorizing anyone has to follow such a scale as Beingness Processing.   

Oddly enough, Beingness Processing is an excellent exteriorization tool, and I say ‘Oddly enough’ because, in one sense, Beingness Processing is an Alter-is-ness process. When a case is extremely inverted it is necessary to get the case up to a level where it can identify itself with something. Beingness is essentially an identification of self with an object.

The commands used in Beingness Processing should begin with the environment and the vicinity of the preclear. One has the preclear look around the auditing room and select an object, let us say a chair.  The auditor does this by saying ‘Look around the room and discover some object which you don’t mind being present’. Remember always, that when an auditor asks a question, that question has to be answered by the preclear. It is the auditor’s bad luck if he asks a question which introduces an enormously long communication lag in the preclear.  The preclear must still answer the question. At this question, then, ‘Discover something you don’t mind being present’, it is necessary that the preclear actually locate something, even if a dust mote. The auditor then asks the preclear to ‘Locate something else you don’t mind being present’. And when all communication lag is gone from this level of process, the auditor then picks out an object which the preclear was comfortable about and says: ‘Now see this (chair) here’, ‘All right, what else wouldn’t you mind this (chair) being?’ And then, as the preclear answers this, and using this same object, the auditor continues to ask the same question until all communication lag is gone from the question: ‘What else wouldn’t you mind this (chair) being?’

The auditor then selects other objects in the area and uses the same question on them: ‘What wouldn’t you mind this (couch) being?’, ‘What else wouldn’t you mind this (couch) being?’ When the preclear is perfectly willing to have anything in the room be a large number of things, including the walls, the ceiling, and the floor the auditor asks: ‘Now what wouldn’t you mind your body being?’ And whatever the preclear answers, ‘And now what else wouldn’t you mind your body being?’ Finally, when the preclear is able to do all the foregoing in Beingness Processing, the auditor commands him:  ‘Now let’s find something you wouldn’t mind being’, and, as this is the question for which the auditor has been working, he uses this question for a very long period of time, asking over and over, ‘What else wouldn’t you mind being?’

It will be discovered in working Beingness Processing that the entire mechanism of winning Valences occurs. Here, for instance, is a thetan who is caught in a theta trap. After a while he will consider that the trap itself is surviving, which is to say that the motions of the trap have themselves set the thetan into motion so that he now thinks of himself totally as a trap. (This is how anybody gets to be anything -- by getting set into motion by the vibrations in his vicinity.)

At first the thetan is willing to be the trap, but after a while, if asked to be the trap and then asked to be the thetan (and this is not a process), the most terrible apathy will be found to intervene between the two steps. The thetan, while fairly comfortable being the trap, on beginning to recover some of his own identity, will be found to be at a point on the tone scale so low as to contain an unbearable and agonizing apathy.

Beingness Processing recovers the various valences which the thetan is trying to avoid. As a practical example in life, we find a housewife who is incapable of keeping house. Although intelligent and able in most things, we find she cannot sweep, make beds, or even shop for the house. We discover that her mother was an excellent housekeeper, an excellent cook, and could shop very well. If this is the case, then we would also discover that the one person in this world our preclear does not want to be is her mother. In other words, by being unable to be her mother, she is also unable to be all those things which her mother could do or be. In other words, the matter of valences is also a matter of packages of abilities, and where an individual is unable to be something which has certain definite abilities, he also cannot achieve those abilities, and this, in itself, is the heart of disability.

In running Beingness Processing it will be discovered that the imagination of the preclear revives to a marked extent. This is a process which requires a skilled auditor, a patient auditor, and one who is willing to level every communication lag he encounters by repeating the same question over and over, each time waiting to receive a definite answer.  It is not a process which one starts and leaves uncompleted.

P.A.B. No. 56
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

8 July 1955

AXIOM 51 AND COMMUNICATION PROCESSING

Let me give you a small review on communication. Axiom 51 says that MEST cannot change MEST, and we find that postulates and live communication do change MEST. MEST cannot change MEST, therefore a pair of forceps cannot basically change a tooth condition. This is sweeping and I want you to realize how sweeping it actually is. A medical doctor would not be able to alter completely a broken leg. You may say, “That’s silly, of course he could. He could come in and snap the bone back into place and the fellow would feel a lot better.” No, I’m sorry, a medical doctor cannot over a period of time change a broken leg. Do you know what will happen? Let’s look at it from the standpoint of life, now, and we find out that the individual got attention for his broken leg, didn’t he? It will emerge as rheumatism some day. In the next life it will emerge as two broken legs! We’re going to get a repetition of this because as soon as you attempt to change MEST with MEST in one fashion or another you are going to get persistence, and that is all. Persistence of what?

In view of the fact that all conditions are postulated conditions, and that the consideration behind them that they are bad or good is simply again a consideration, if we say persist it doesn’t mean that it is either bad or good, it simply means that condition. What condition is it? The condition we are trying to change. And whenever we try to change MEST with MEST we get a persistence of that condition. It will crop up one way or another, and you will see this time after time.

Dealing as we are in a very high echelon of live communication, when we try to alter a condition with MEST we get this persistence. Restimulation is the condition persisting in the auditor, as an auditor who goes around altering energy masses gets restimulated. The auditor comes along and says, “Now all I have to do is change this energy mass one way or the other,” and he may succeed in doing so as far as he can see for the moment. So he goes off restimulated. That is the condition persisting. It’s going to persist, one way or the other. The only motto back of MEST is “PERSIST.”

But we have this licked. Hence Axiom 51. Postulates and live communication actually can bring about a permanent change and can actually stop a persistence.

Now, this process, “What wouldn’t you mind____communicating with?” “What wouldn’t       mind you communicating with?” is actually not a low echelon process. A low-echelon preclear, one with no mock-ups and very little reality, one who is not well off, will not be touched by this process. He cannot assimilate the process. Why? Because, to run this process, you have to have the cooperation of the preclear’s ability to as-is. You have to have the ability of the preclear to have a cognition and the ability of the preclear to as-is a piece of energy, that is, to make a perfect duplicate of it.

Where, then, does that leave this process to be totally functional? It leaves it upstairs, because when you run it downstairs, the individual begins to “chew energy.” Just “chewing the energy around” doesn’t make it persist, but, with all this chewing, he isn’t as-ising anything. All he is doing is moving mass “A” to position “B.” Anybody who is doing this gets no cognition out of it at all. He is waiting for that piece of energy to tell him something, and this tells you a great deal about the preclear who couldn’t run an engram. He was waiting for the MEST to say something.

The preclear who could run engrams could still play a game well enough to make the MEST say over and over again what the MEST had imprinted on it. That is exactly why an engram could run and why we had success in running engrams, and when an engram disappeared that is exactly what happened. It was up there all right, it was up there in lights, but it wasn’t saying anything. It was a bunch of sound waves imprinted on a bunch of molecules of one kind or another, and the preclear had to sort of pretend it was saying these things over and over. In other words, he made it talk. Now today an individual gets an engram in front of his face and you just tell him to make it talk. Make it say, if you please, exactly what is in the engram, or make it say anything—it doesn’t matter which.

As we look over this running of an engram, let us say that we are getting an individual to run birth. What we are doing is to get an energy mass called birth to articulate to an individual, and it would run very handsomely indeed if we had the preclear saying Okay. This is actually a terrifically effective way to run an engram. If we wanted to start today running engrams, we could, full out, and achieve tremendously superior successes because we could certainly run any kind of an engram in the bank. We could dream it up, and the preclear could dream it up, could do anything he wanted to, just to make these energy masses talk.

Of course very strange phenomena happen on an occluded case when you have him dream up the fact that he has the concept of an engram in front of him. You just look at him and you say, “Now let’s make believe that you have birth in restimulation in front of you.” (This would be a roughie, and a weird way to go about it.) “And now let’s pick up the engram at the point where the doctor is saying, ‘If you will just take this pint of strychnine, mamma, the child will be born much earlier.’ “ You have him to make this concept say this, and have him say Okay to that.

The strange part of it is that you don’t have to pay any attention to whether birth shows up or not. I counted the number of births on an individual one time and it was several thousand, believe me, and they all go back to Fac Ones and things like that. So we just have him get the idea that he has birth in front of him and have it articulate. Quite often this totally occluded case will have a complete birth show up and begin to run off. But, he was totally occluded, wasn’t he? He couldn’t run an engram.

We could just buckle right down at that point and actually run that engram with Okays from the preclear, just as it showed up, or we could go on running a synthetic engram. In either case facsimiles would go out of restimulation in the individual. As long as we have communication those energy masses will disintegrate and you will stop the persistence of the condition.

So let’s look at the optimum way that I know of at this moment—the best way I know of—to separate universes, on which I have had considerable success and to date have had no failures as long as the preclear could at least articulate anything. As long as you can make him do anything at all you can make him do this. You have seen the process already.

“Give me some things you could say to your mother.” If you wanted to make this very perfect, if he is unable to play a game you don’t have to (very often the preclear is unable to play a game), you would say, “Now get the idea mamma is out there saying Okay to all of this.” “Now give me something else you could say to your mother.” Then you say, “Get the idea mamma is out there and have her say ‘Okay.’ “ “Now give me some things that mamma could say to you.”

Now you will get a positive blow-apart in a fairly rapid order of the interiorization of the universe. We know very well that people interiorize into a body, into other bodies, into MEST objects, into planets. So, if you were to run this one all the way backward you would take somebody who is obviously seen to be interiorized into earth, and what would you have him do?

You would say, “All right now, give me something earth could say to you.” If he is really interiorized into earth he’ll think up something. Then you have him say Okay. The next thing you know he will get the ball of earth ‘way out there somewhere. Maybe it’s the first picture he has ever had! You will say, “That’s fine. Now give me some more things that earth could say to you.” “Now give me some things you could say to earth,” and very ordinarily he will come right on up the tone scale. You will never see such perfect behavior of a tone scale as when you use a MEST object.

Then we would pick out (if we really were bent on exteriorizing Mr. Doakes and Mr. Doakes was interiorized into the interiorizations) another universe when we knew that we had the first one blown, and we would know that because his physiological condition would very definitely alter. We would go on to the next likely universe.

We find this fellow who has been a linotype operator for eight thousand seven hundred and sixty-two months, or something of the sort. We don’t have to be specific. We pick a linotype machine, and we say if he got into earth he certainly got there via some sort of apparatus he was controlling, so we say, “All right, what could a linotype machine say to you?” He would think it over for a moment. A very literal-minded fellow would probably say, “It could say ‘clank.’ “

“Okay, have it say clank.”

“You know, I don’t get any sonic on this,” he’d say. (I’ve had this happen.)

“Well, just get the idea of its saying clank.”

“Well, it’s going clank, all right.”

(“Oh no you don’t,” says the auditor, aside and to himself.) “Have it SAY clank.”

“Have it SAY clank? A linotype machine can’t . . . well, I guess it could. On thinking it over I guess a linotype machine could.... All right, I’ll have it say clank.”

“All right. Now have it say something else.” He does, and we blow him out of the universe of the linotype machine.

Now let’s pick the wife he hates worst, or something like that. What could she say? etc. Admittedly this is not a short process, but it keeps going faster and faster. Next we would pull him out of papa and mamma, and maybe grandma and grandpa, and so on. We are doing one of these schoolbook, by the table, separations. Then we say, “Now give me something your body could say to you.”

“My body say something to me?”

And away we would go, and we would blow him out of his head.

It will work with almost that mechanical ease. The question is, how many hours of auditing would it take to bring somebody who is totally interiorized into a planet out through these various stages and finally out of his head? As far as I’m concerned it is the minimum number of hours he could be audited for maximum result.

We could do a tremendous number of things for him. We could do a momentary patch-up on a lot of things, we could do this and we could do that, but if we were going straight toward the goal of making this individual into the highest level of condition that we could make him into, we would follow a process just about like this. It would be slow, and it would be arduous, but we would get better, and better, and better. He would finally get to a point where he could feel these things blow off and blow out on him.

I went so far one time as to try to exteriorize a fellow from his engram bank. I think I exteriorized a lot of thetans from that bank, but I never got the fellow out of it entirely because I didn’t have the time. His track finally stretched out in all directions and he could view it clearly, and then he was terribly interested and wanted to run and have to do with each individual engram—and there were about seventy-six trillion years worth of them. Then there was the whole GE line. So I abandoned that attempt. He felt wonderful, though, and went around telling everybody he was cleared. Compared to his earlier state he sure was. He was cleared easily from eight or nine heavy engrams in about eight or nine hours’ auditing.

The articulation of the actual communication would be something you would do on an individual who is having the vaguest difficulty playing a game, who couldn’t as-is birth at a glance. And this is the conclusion I have reached rather arduously over these past weeks on this. I give you data when I have it.

Axiom 51 is right. It says you can’t change MEST with MEST, but postulates and live communication can change it. But realization on the part of a preclear with no cognition is not possible. So if he can’t realize, that means he can’t as-is, so if he can’t as-is, there he is. But I have seen preclears pass right on up the line from cognition zero to almost instantaneous cognition. In the Air Force they have ceiling zero. We have cognition zero, but it’s the same thing—total fog.

It is immensely safe for an auditor to change by communication. There is no restimulation involved. 

P.A.B. No. 54
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

10 June 1955

REALITY LEVEL OF PRECLEAR

Find the reality of the preclear. This is the watchword of processing. Although communication, as completely outlined in Dianetics, 1955! is a universal solvent, remember that there are also two other comers to the triangle, and that one of these corners is Reality. That R corner of the triangle is very important to you as an auditor because you, having very great certainties on this and on that, are very prone to forget that your Realities are greater than those of your preclear.

The reality level of the preclear is dependent on how much he is “not-ising” his environment. If he is not-ising it, he must believe that it is dangerous, and must believe that he himself does not have the power to make anything in it disappear or vanish for himself. Therefore, his reality level is as great as he is strong, and it is as poor as he is weak. Do you know that you are processing preclears who do not believe that thought has anything to do with action? You are processing preclears who believe that thinking a thought will influence nothing. You are processing preclears who believe that thinkingness is one thing and actingness is an entirely different thing, and that no amount of thinkingness is going to influence any amount of actingness. This is apathy, indeed, and along with that goes an unreality which would appall you.

Yes, these preclears can get mock-ups. They can get concepts. They can be very obedient. They can even be run with SOP 8-C and somehow or another muddle through it, but the joker here is that the auditor is actually monitoring the body of the preclear, and of course a body can respond to orders, and will respond probably faster to the auditor’s orders than to the thetan the auditor is processing. Thus a preclear can be put through any number of contortions and convolutions in processing without getting anywhere at all. The auditor is simply doing it.

Find the reality level of your preclear. Unless you find the reality level of the preclear you are not going to reach the preclear, because the preclear is as alive as things are real.

Now, if this is so important, then let us see how far south we would have to go to reach some preclears. Mechanical two-way communication might very well be much too tough for 75% of the preclears you will process. Just ordinary conversation is actually over their heads. People that we are trying to reach do not know the auditor is acknowledging them when he says “Okay.”

Let us look at this acknowledgment of the preclear, and let us discover that the auditor, in order to acknowledge the preclear, must also make the preclear aware that he is being acknowledged. Thus, when an auditor says “Okay,” or “All right,” or “That’s fine,” the other part of the statement is to make the preclear aware that an acknowledgment has been delivered. Thus, a “Did you hear me?” is quite often beneficial. When the preclear finally admits that he did hear the “Okay,” and when the auditor makes sure that he time after time hears the “Okay,” you will notice that the communication, on the acknowledgment level, starts to work with the preclear. But it won’t work as long as the preclear is oblivious of the “Okays” the auditor is giving. Of course, you must give the preclear an “Okay” for every action or completed thought he performs. You must acknowledge what he has said or done, but you must also be very sure that he receives that acknowledgment. It is not out of order to face him squarely and hold up one finger and say, “Wait a minute, did you hear me say ‘Okay’?”

Now there are two processes which are at once the most basic of processes and which are very low on the Reality Scale as well as high on it. A person processed on these processes should not believe that the auditor believes his reality level is low. Quite the contrary. Such a process as this one happens to be very good anywhere on the tone scale. And this process is, “Think a thought,” “Receive a thought.”

You are in essence processing thinkingness. I wonder how long and how often you have processed preclears who could not clearly or differentiatively understand that they were thinking a thought? The auditing command is simply, “Think a thought.” The preclear is given this command time and time again, and he vocalizes the thought back to the auditor, and the auditor acknowledges the fact that he has received that thought, aloud. And the preclear is run until the preclear knows, absolutely, that he himself, not some machine, not some energy mass, not his toe, or his hat, is thinking the thought. The preclear will start out thinking thoughts which are actually handed to him from some mysterious source. When the communication lag on this is entirely flat, and when the preclear knows that he himself is thinking the thought, the auditor can then run the other side of the process.

“Receive a thought” is run with the following auditing command: “Tell me a thought you would be willing to receive.” This is then run until it, as a process, is entirely flat: when it is no longer producing any result or comm lag.

Part of the “Think a thought” process is to have the preclear place the thought in various locations after he has thought it. Have his shoe think a thought, have his hat think a thought, have a lamp think the thought, have a rug think the thought. This gets the preclear into the practice of placing the thought somewhere. Thus, thoughts are less likely to appear suddenly and magically out of his machinery.

Very curious phenomena result from “Think a thought” and “Receive a thought.” It will be found sometimes that it is easier for the preclear to think a thought for another universe than for himself to think a thought. Let us take for example a preclear who is entirely interiorized into the universe of his mother. It would, therefore, evidently be much easier for him to have his mother think a thought than for the preclear himself to think a thought. As a matter of fact it might be an enormous struggle, resulting in rebellion, for the preclear himself to think a thought, but it would be very easy for the preclear to have his mother think a thought. The way to go about this would be to take an E-Meter, or simply estimate, by finding out who the preclear most resembles, the probable universe into which the preclear is interiorized. Having established this (and you would only do this if the preclear were rebellious about thinking a thought himself) you would then have this likely universe think a thought, with the auditing command (having established that he is interiorized into his mother’s or his father’s universe): “Have your mother (father) think a thought.” This would then be carried out until the preclear was absolutely sure that he was making his mother or his father think a thought. This would betoken an initial division of the universe.

Slicing up universes with communication processes is a very easy thing to do. All one has to do is use the process: “What could you say to your father?” and have the preclear say it, and get an Okay from his father. And when this was flat, “What could your father say to you?”, and when the preclear has vocalized this, the auditor would say, “Now give your father an ‘Okay’ to this.” However, this workable process which splits universes (in old-time parlance “valences”) is yet much too high for a preclear who is very low on reality, and would take a very long time to do. It would be a process into which you would eventually move the preclear who had been thinking a thought for his mother, but remember that thinking a thought for his mother would be only a start into communication processing, and would be an elementary process, run until the preclear is entirely certain that he is thinking a thought that his mother would think or that he can make his mother think a thought—the latter being the most desirable condition.

You should be aware of the fact that you are processing thinkingness. You are not processing spaces, you are not processing masses at this day and state of development of Dianetics and Scientology. You are processing thinkingness. A man is as well as he thinks. The more masses and spaces, phrases and engrams you process, the less you are validating the fact that you are actually processing a thinkingness: a thinkingness that we call a thetan. To process this directly is, of course, the most indicated process there could be, and sure enough, we are producing good results with it. But the remarkable thing about the process is that it works on people who heretofore have had very, very poor reality.

Now there is a process which is a little bit lower than this “Think a thought” process, and this is the process of finding something real in the room. Recently I have had some very excellent results with “Find something in this room that is comfortably real.” This is a variation on the initial auditing command as given in the early SOPs. It is apparently better. A preclear who is not-ising everything in sight will find things real, he says, but actually he is not comfortable about it, and if you ask him to find something that is comfortably real, it may take him a long time to discover anything that he would tolerate to continue existence, and once you have begun this process of toleration you would be able to do a great deal for his case.

“Find something comfortably real” is not necessarily a low-toned process. It will work in varying degrees on anyone. It is not recommended for any particular case level. If a preclear utterly bogs on “Think a thought” (which isn’t likely), then you should have him “Find something in this room that is comfortably real to you.”

I am reminded of an auditor recently processing a very bad arthritic, who processed him as an exteriorized case for some little time without any apparent gain in the case before it occurred to this auditor that something must be wrong. Actually, a great amount of time was invested. The auditor asked Nibs, my boy who was then instructing the ACC course in the United States, and who is at this writing in England, teaching the BScn course there, what could possibly be wrong with this hung-fire preclear. Nibs looked him over and discovered that the auditor had never yet gotten the preclear into any kind of a situation which was even vaguely real to the preclear. The auditor in one chair and the preclear in the other chair was not a real situation to this preclear, and yet the auditor was running him as an exteriorized case. Of course he was exteriorized, but with such a low level of reality that very little benefit of course was resulting from the processing.

Processing is as beneficial as it is real and factual to the preclear, and if you cannot raise the preclear’s reality level by the use of Affinity and Communication, then you are letting the whole triangle hang fire. This triangle of ARC may have suddenly gotten very important on the C corner, but it is still foremost in the tool-kit of the auditor.

Now you will want to know why you should use “Think a thought” when what is obviously wrong with the preclear you have in mind is a withered leg. Let me assure you that if you process directly this withered leg, you are processing something and somebody who probably has a very low level of reality. He wouldn’t have a withered leg if he had a high level of reality. Where you have anybody who is neurologically, physically, or psychosomatically ill, unless it be from an acute infection or an accident, you have somebody who has been trying to not-is his body. When an individual is not-ising his body, making his legs wither, or his stomach get ulcers, or his head get migraine headaches, or his teeth fall out, you have somebody who is trying to not-is the environment. He is already going in the direction of succumb. The one thing that would make him very happy would be the entire disappearance of the physical universe. Well, with modern processing you can make this happen, too, and maybe this is something you should have happen for him in order to demonstrate that it could happen. Of course, if you did this you would have to go through a modern BScn course at least, for this is a very tricky procedure. In view of the fact that unreality is the action of realizing things are there and then saying they aren’t there (not-ising them; see Creation of Human Ability and the Axioms of Scientology) you are dealing with a protest against reality which results in unreality. A person will let things be as real as he is willing to let them exist. When an individual isn’t willing to let a leg or a tree, or this universe exist, then things are not real to him. One of the best ways you could get him to raise his level of reality would be to give him some reality on thinkingness. It isn’t actingness, it isn’t getting tired, it isn’t being unable to work, it isn’t the second dynamic that impedes your preclear—it is his thinkingness. All you have to do is to get him to change his mind. If you could get anyone to change his mind enough he could then command anything that was bothering him. But a preclear who is not-ising things is trying to use force and pressure of one kind or another against physical objects and spaces in order to push them out of existence. This will never win, let me assure you. Energy will never destroy energy, I don’t care how many atomic bombs the peanut whistly brigade builds, they will never destroy any space or energy with them. Your preclear who finds things unreal has stopped trying to do anything with thought and is trying to do something with force. He no longer conceives that thought can generate or handle or give existence or life to space and energy.

Now you take this to heart, and take a good, hard look at some of these preclears you have been processing on very fancy and frilly processes, and you take a think back over all of these preclears who, after you processed them, didn’t think anything had happened. When the preclear didn’t think anything had happened, nothing happened. What was in error? You were processing him above his level of reality. If you could get him to think a thought and know he thought it, and receive a thought and know he had received it, even though he put it there to receive it, which is what he does, you would then be directly addressing the very thing that is doing unreality and reality. An individual who has a compulsive outflow is simply unwilling to receive a thought. An individual who is silent simply can’t think of anything. Thus, if an individual had control of his thoughts he would have control of the universe. We can prove this now in a process.

And don’t think you are going to finish this process, either side of it, in a half-hour or forty-five minutes. Some of these glib preclears you process will “fall in” on this process and begin to comm-lag an hour or two after you start processing them on it. The main errors which have been made with this process so far have been failing to run it long enough to have the preclear really know and really understand that he, himself, has thought the thought and that he, himself, has received the thought, or is willing to receive the thought.

“Find the reality level of the preclear” is one of those bywords that you can’t use too often or look at enough. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1960

Fran Hldrs

STANDARDIZED SESSIONS

There are many reasons why sessions should be standardized and held in pattern. First of these is confidence. The auditor, going over practised ground, feels more confident and, startled by some sudden action or new development, does not lose session control by seeming incapable to the pc. The preclear, accustomed to repetitive session pattern, feels a security when all his sessions are predictable as to pattern of address. And if he changes auditors he is still able to feel confident that he is getting real auditing.

A second reason is duplication: Just as old repeater technique done by the auditor to the pc will run out a phrase or charged word, so do session patterns, well followed, tend to run out earlier sessions. Duplication does not make all things seem alike. Duplication of a session adds communication to the session and speeds up the willingness of the pc to communicate to the auditor.

The basic freeing action of auditing depends upon the separation of thought from form, matter, energy, space and time and other life.

We see in “science” as currently practised a nearly total identification by the “scientist” of mass with thought. “Man from mud” is a natural conclusion by anyone who has all his thought bound up in mass.

The reason a clear’s needle is so free (and you’ve seen, certainly, how an E-Meter needle gets sticky, then freer and freer) is that his thought is separated from a matter, energy, space, time consequence.

The “deadin-’is-’ead” case is totally associating all thought with mass. Thus he reads peculiarly on the meter. As he is audited he frees his thinkingness so that he can think without mass connotations.

What auditing is doing is making the preclear think key thoughts until they can be thought without creating or disturbing matter, energy, space and time.

As most pcs associate themselves with thought, only when they can think a thought without ploughing anew into mass can they exteriorize. Difficult exteriorization or exteriorization with bad consequences is all caused by a person’s considerations of thought being matter, self being matter, etc, etc.

The basic overt act is making somebody else want mest. This recoils so that self wants mest. Thus we have the “necessity for havingness”. Running havingness restores the pc at cause over matter, permits him to be separate from matter to some degree.

Thinking, then, is separated from mest by repetitive thinking on the exact points that pin a particular person to mest.

If a person is aberrated, say, on the subject of women, the shortest cut to de-aberration (barring havingness difficulties—see below) would be the repeated command “Think of a woman.” At last he would no longer have pictures or masses just because he thought that thought and you would then find he could think about women as opposed to reacting about women.
This naturally leads to an obvious basic process, “Think about matter” “Think about energy” “Think about space” “Think about time” “Think about a thetan.” In theory each one could be run flat in turn and then all run again.

In actual practice this is pretty steep for most cases and would not be real to many. A more complex approach containing more significance is more real to the pc.

The pc’s mind is trapped into forms of mest and life, rather than merely mest and life. Thus, what falls on the E-Meter needle shows what form of mest and life his attention is fixed upon.

Havingness is a complicated subject when viewed in a pc’s mind. Familiarity, which is to say, predictability, is strongly connected with his ability to have or own. When he receives shocks or surprises, his ability to predict is invalidated and he can’t have.

The reason a thetan “dies” is his loss of the familiar by the introduction of the unpredictable. Rapidity of change of state, unpredicted, would be a definition of surprise, also of death and forgetfulness.

The more change he is subjected to, that he did not predict, the less he can have.

Thus when he is given a “rough session”, the pc’s havingness goes down. Not predicting the shifts and changes of the auditor, the pc ceases to be able to have the session or its appurtenances—the auditor, the room, etc. The smoother the auditing the better the pc’s havingness stays up.

The model session is designed to avoid unpredictable changes. Thus it is designed to retain havingness by retaining pattern, which is to say, retaining predictability by l;he pc.

Auditing, done smoothly, duplicatively session by session as to session pattern, runs itself out, even if the pc has a constantly changing bank.

A pc began to use pictures when he changed lives and sometimes, therefore, language, but only after he had already adopted language for thought. So an ultimate step in processing could concern itself with separating the pc from the significance of words. Some such process as “Think of a word,” followed by “Think of a meaning,” would in theory, if it could be run (but has not been tested and would violate havingness), discharge the pc of his dependence on language for thought and would find him less fixated on having pictures (which of course bridge the language barrier).

Appearing in a form composed of matter, running on energy, existing in space and keeping pace with others in time is a favour pcs do one another (or an overt act depending on how cynical you may feel when you consider it).

The games condition of havingness is have for self, can’t have for others. Appearing in a form violates this games condition. Also, giving another words violates it. Thus actors and writers tend to go downhill by violating their own games condition if they are in one. A games condition evolves from separateness. Running some form of separateness can then result in exteriorization not from willingness to lose the mass of the body but by curing the games condition. Separateness is of course handled on lower cases by running out obsessive connectedness. But separateness itself can be run.

Any auditing is a solution: Solutions are ordinarily an alter-is of problems. Thus getting people to confront problems or even solutions can resolve not only case but auditing where auditing itself has now and then, in absence of smooth analysis and session handling, become a problem to the preclear.

A fine process for this is “Tell me a problem that auditing would be a solution to,” and for that matter, this also applies to any psychosomatic illness. A person with a bad leg would experience relief if audited on “Tell me a problem a bad leg would be a solution to,” as a repetitive process. Similarly, it might work if one asked “Tell me a solution to a bad leg you could confront,” or “What problem about a leg could you confront?” which last is very good as a process.

The separation of thinkingness from a problem, from particular forms, and from Life and Mest are the primary targets of auditing. And just as the repetitive auditing command runs out not only the connection with a mass but itself, so does a repetitive session design eventually free the pc from not only his aberrations but auditing itself.

A person gets as able as he regains confidence—and he gets as free as his auditing is a constant not itself a wild variable.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1959

AN AFFINITY PROCESS

We have a fundamental Reality process in Overt-Withhold Straight Wire and, at a higher level, “What can you confront?”

Variations suggest themselves but what with Administration, Congresses, HPA Courses, ACCs and heavy promotion, I have not had time to test them.

The above form, startlingly enough, does work. It apparently cracks lower cases than “What can you confront?” There is some evidence it raises havingness.

A basic communication process is “Recall a time you communicated.”

There have been few successful Affinity processes. However, as unlikely as it first appears, the following is nearly a pure Affinity process.

“What would you like to confront?”

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mp .rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MARCH 1961
Ds of P
All HGC Personnel
All Auditors Auditing Staff
All 22nd American ACC students
All 3rd S.A. ACC students

NEW PRE-HAV COMMAND

Here is a new command for Communication on the Pre-Hav Scale.

It comes as a surprise to me to find a new Comm process after Comm being in prominence 11 years, but that’s what’s happened. Also this process is foreshadowed by the Code of Honor.

It replaces the Pre-Hav Command in HCO Bulletin of February 2, 1961 (dated March 9, 1961 from Saint Hill).

The basic command from which the others are derived is: 

“RECALL NOT WANTING TO COMMUNICATE.”

The full commands that can be run in sequence are:

“Recall not wanting to communicate.” 
“Recall another not wanting to communicate.” 
“Recall not wanting another to communicate.” 
“Recall another not wanting you to communicate.” 
“Recall another not wanting others to communicate.” 
“Recall a communication.” 
“Recall a no-communication.” 
“Recall a communication.” 
“Recall a no-communication.” 
“Recall a communication.” 
“Recall a no-communication.”

The command structure, having so many possibilities, has only been partially sorted out. The first five commands of the above or the last six commands of the above or all of the above may be run. The last six, of course, handle loss incidents.

It just may be that the first line as a process underlies all withholds and gives later withholds power. This may then, just as a process, considerably ease the task set in getting off withholds on secretive cases.

Using all the first five lines in sequence is probably easiest on the pc, afterwards flattening the last six commands.

LRH: ph.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1959

HAS CO-AUDIT

Here are some hints on how to run Comm Processes on assessment:

The instructor asks the preclear if he is sick or well. If the pc says he is ill then the instructor says, “What part of the body would you say is ill?” Whatever the pc answers, this is then run on “From where could you communicate to a .... (generalized terminal) body part.” If the pc answers that he is well, the instructor says, “Have you ever been ill?” The pc will in general say yes. The instructor then says, “What part of your body was ill?” and runs the Comm Process on whatever the pc says.

Giving you advance scoop on a new research win it seems that the most effective and rapid clearing could take place with what we will call Universal Processes. This means running a Comm Process on Universe as follows:

“From where could you communicate to the physical Universe.”

“From where could you communicate to a body.”

“From where could you communicate to a mind.”

“From where could you communicate to a Thetan.”

This is all experimental at this stage but it would be a separation process from all universes the thetan is anxious about and should be quite successful in general use.

However I give you this not to use but to show you that we would probably win further and better if we began to steam people up on the subject of being clear and then slammed right in on whatever universe they could handle on Co-audit. I would then run Co-audit as follows:

Do the actions described above on body part and when the pc has come through that go at once on to the physical universe and then graduate him on to any body part that bangs on the meter and finally when various parts are flat get him into running the body as a general terminal.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :iet.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1959

CenOCon
HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

The following rundown is to be used in all HGCs.

For use on unconscious and fixedly psychotic persons unwilling to be audited:

“You make that body sit on that chair (or lie on that bed)”, and CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited at any time:

Two way help bracket 
“How could you help me?” 
“How could I help you?”

Get each question answered. Use lots of two way comm. Don’t Q and A with reasons.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited by reason of session errors:

TR 5N, which is: 
“What have I done wrong?” 
“What have you done wrong?” 
with two way comm.

For persons who are acutely ill:

Ask them what part of their body they think is ill. 
Use that as the terminal. Run:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
(body part named).

For use on persons who complain that auditing has no effect on them or who make very slow gains, or who are going for OT. Run:

Process S2: “From where could you communicate to a victim?”

This is flat when pc can confront calmly a victim.

For use on persons in general. If this has been handled in an HAS Co-audit well, don’t handle it again:

Overt-Withhold Straight Wire after careful assessment and used on various buttons, Dynamic Straight Wire, Know to Mystery Straight Wire, are all more or less same processes but are different ways of assessment. Always run terminals, never conditions.

For use on persons who have a p.t. problem. Get them to name the terminals associated with the problem. Run:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
(general form of terminal).

For use on persons in general, always to some extent when they enter HGC:

S-C-S.

For use on auditors in for auditing. Run until fully flat:

Process S 2:

“From where could you communicate to a victim?’

For use on people going to theta clear. Use liberally and long:

Assess case with E-Meter. Spot terminals needing clearing. Use:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
on each terminal.

For use on people going to theta clear:

Find engram necessary to resolve the case each time. Check out all terminals present in it. Make a list. Run: “From where could you communicate to a___	?” (each terminal in incident by general name). Don’t run off from incident that is being run. Pc will go up and down the track but when one terminal is flat, choose the next from the same incident we started with. Remember to resurvey incident for new terminals when several are flat.

For finishing off cases to level of theta clear:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
(male, female bodies, bodies, mest).

For easing off any case into comfort or completion of an intensive:

Get person to say what is wrong. Get them to name the terminal they think is the trouble, run:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
(terminal name).

HAS CO-AUDIT

Comm processes may be used in HAS Co-audit. Assess by asking person: “Are you sick or well?” If he says “ill”, ask, “What part of your body do you think is ill?” Run:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
(body part person said).

If person says “well”, then say, “What person or thing have you been most sorry for?” (meaning pity). Whatever person says, run it as a terminal, “From where could you communicate to a		?” (generalized form of whatever he or she said).

This gets people up to talking and you get the “word of mouth advertising” you should have, plus a lot of better people.

								
LRH:brb.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

R2-60: THE HIDDEN COMMUNICATION

Exerpted from the Book: Creation of Human Ability

‘Spot some hidden knowingness’, is an auditing command which, pursued properly, opens the gates to freedom.

In ‘Scientology 8-80’ and ‘Scientology 8-8008’ you will find a scale which begins at its lowest rung with ‘hidden’. Above that is ‘protection’. Above that is ‘ownership’.  I have recently discovered that the DEI cycle and the above low scale join to make the scale read:

CURIOSITY
DESIRE
ENFORCEMENT
INHIBITION
OWNERSHIP
PROTECTION
HIDDEN
and I have discovered that the road upward through this scale is communication.

Knowingness condenses. Trying to know becomes the first level of communication. This ‘looking to know’ condenses into ‘emoting to know’, which condenses into ‘effort to know’, which in turn becomes ‘thinking to know’, which then condenses into ‘symbols to know’ which, and this is the astonishing thing, becomes ‘eating to know’, which becomes ‘sexual activity to know’, which then turns into oblivion of knowing or ‘mystery’.

An energy particle is a condensed knowingness.  Trying to discover or move one is an action with the goal of knowingness.

Gravity, grim thought, becomes in the mind, and is, the effort to know, to pull in knowingness. Other-determinism is only other knowingness.

The aspects of know are the common denominators of any scale in Scientology. When knowingness is done by communication, we get emotion and effort particles changing position.

This struggle to know is not just me and thee working on Scientology and gone mad in the process, it is life and all its manifestations including space, energy, matter and time. Each is only a barrier to knowingness. A barrier is a barrier only in that it impedes knowingness.  Barriers do not exist for complete knowingness.

And what is there to know? Only that knowingness can vary. One has to invent things to know for there is only knowingness, and knowingness has no data since a datum is an invented, not a true, knowingness.  The motto of any particle below knowingness is ‘Only energy can tell you’.

We handle R2-60 HIDDEN KNOWINGNESS in this wise: ‘Spot some hidden communications’, ‘And now spot some more hidden communications’, and so forth. We may have to direct the preclear closely with, ‘Point to the spot’, ‘How far away does it seem?’, ‘Are you spotting a hidden communication there?’ and such questions, meanwhile keeping good ARC. He could be asked to spot specific kinds of hidden communications as with this command:  ‘Spot some hidden disease communications’, ‘Some hidden poisonous communications’, or ‘Spot some hidden, but uninteresting communications’. But use the question to flatten all communication lags before you change it.

If he goes into the past, let him. He’ll come back to the present. He’ll find his chronic somatic and do many interesting things, including, perhaps, the data in the text of R2-60 here.
It is curious that the above ‘Spot some hidden communications’ does not seem to require a remedy of havingness. But it will turn on many heavy ridges and somatics. Having thoroughly worked ‘hidden communications’ you can now use this command: ‘Spot some protected communications’, and when that is null, ‘Spot some owned communications’, and after that has no communication lag, ‘Spot some inhibited (stopped) communications’. Then: ‘Spot some enforced communications’, and then, ‘Spot some desired communications’.

Now when all that is done, proceed as follows:  ‘Spot some hidden knowingness’, ‘Are you spotting it in the physical universe? If so all right, point to it’, ‘How far away does it seem?’, ‘Spot some more hidden knowingness’, and so on until after an hour or two (or six) this command is comm-lag-flat.

Now start upscale as follows, making the preclear point and give the distance to the spot (even when trillions of miles away): ‘Spot some protected knowingness’. And after many times of that, then: ‘Spot some protected knowingness’, many times. Then: ‘Spot some owned knowingness’, many times.  Then:  ‘Spot some inhibited knowingness’. Then: ‘Spot some enforced knowingness’. Then: ‘Spot some desired knowingness’. Then: ‘Spot some knowingness that people could be curious about’.

In R2-60 HIDDEN KNOWINGNESS, we can use the Know - Mystery scale:

‘Spot some mysteries’
‘Spot some hidden sex’
‘Spot some hidden eating’ ‘Spot some hidden symbols’
‘Spot some hidden thinking’ ‘Spot some hidden efforts’ 
‘Spot some hidden emotions’
‘Spot some hidden looking’ ‘Spot some hidden knowing’
Then: ‘Spot some protected mysteries’, ‘Spot some protected sex’, and so on.

You can, using the principles of hidden knowing and communication, combine any other part of Scientology with them, and discover an excellent process. However, the first commands given in R2-60 are the easiest to communicate and to use.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER 1959

Franchise Holders

D.E.I. EXPANDED SCALE

(With a Note on Salesmen)

The original scale

          	4.0 Desire
	1.5 Enforce
           	.5 Inhibit

was expanded in 1952 to

Curiosity 
Desire
Enforce 
Inhibit.

In 1959 I have found another vital point on this scale which gives us a new case entrance point.

Curiosity 
Desire
Enforce 
Inhibit
Unknown

I suspect also that “Wait” fits between Unknown and Inhibit.

To make these agree in intention, they would become

Interest 
Desire
Enforce 
Inhibit
Unknow.

This scale also inverts, I find, similar to the Dynamics and below sanity on any subject.

Unknow 
Inhibit
Enforce 
Desire
Interest

These points, particularly on the inverted scale, going down, are lowered by failure. Each lower step is an explanation to justify having failed with the upper level.

One seeks to not know something and fails. One then seeks to inhibit it and fails. Therefore one seeks to enforce it and fails. Thus one explains by desiring it and fails. And not really being able to have it, shows thereafter an obsessive interest in it.

The above inversion is of course all reactive.

Reactive selling (of interest to us in a salesman campaign) would be accomplished thusly (and this is the basic scale of selling):

The salesman refuses to let the customer forget the product;

The salesman then inhibits all efforts by the customer to refuse the product;

The salesman enforces the product on the customer;

The salesman now finds the customer desires the product;

And the customer will remain interested.

There is an interplay here whereby the salesman reverses the scale:

Source of Sales Failure

	Salesman	Customer

	Interest	Unknow
	Desire	Inhibit
	Enforce	Enforce
	Inhibit	Desire
	Unknow	Interest

Salesmen, bringing about an inverted scale, can go downscale themselves as they do it. They seek to interest and meet forgetfulness. They want to sell and meet opposition. They high pressure the customer and get pressured back. And about the time the customer wants the product the salesman is reactively inhibiting the sale. And as the customer’s interest is at its highest the salesman forgets all about him.

SALESMAN SUCCESS

All a salesman has to do is continue to try to interest the customer and the reactive inversion will take place.

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

It is interesting that this scale, more importantly, gives us new case entrances. A series of Comm Processes on any terminal, say “bodies”, could be run.

From where could you communicate to an unknown body an unwanted body a necessary body a desirable body an interesting body

This would pick the case off the bottom and run it to the top on any terminal that has gone totally reactive.

By the way, don’t take my remarks on salesmen as being “all for the best”. The basic overt act is making people want useless objects and spaces, and unfortunately for him that’s often part of the business of the salesman. He, unlike us, sometimes isn’t fishing people out of the mud. He’s often more likely pushing them in. Therefore he needs our help to get square with the world. As his income depends on making people want things and buy things (even though sometimes they need them), we haven’t much choice but to show him the mechanics of selling, to the end of getting him to help pull others out of the mud. Making somebody want something they really need is no crime, but the salesman is on very shaky ground. What do people really need? We had best not try to get involved in the ethics of all this, or to persuade them to sell only needed items.

The whole economic structure needs the salesman; he is the key of the whole structure. But we can leaven the flow of even useless goods by letting an invitation to freedom trickle in the same channel.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dd.rd.-h 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1959

NEW PROCESS

THEORY

It never snows but it avalanches!

Possessing now tremendous processes at lowest levels, we need a new understanding of processing and assessment.

The broad tone scale is divided into three general parts. Highest is Pan Determinism. Mid-range is Self-Determinism. Low range is Other-Determinism.

The fundamental difficulty is that something has so thoroughly overwhelmed the pc that he is it. This is Other-Determinism become the person. Mild locks use this route to further overwhelm him. A person doesn’t really find anything in this lifetime that would have overwhelmed him enough to aberrate him. It took great doing. Things like prenatals and operations and shocks just use the existing overwhelm channel.

The picture of aberration is this. The person causes an effect, time and time again. Usually this is not aberrative. But one day he causes an unintended effect. He didn’t mean to. It was wrong. This is the true overt act—an unintended bad effect. It is not deserved by the recipient. It is a wrong, unintended, undeserved effect. The person now tends to limit his effects or withhold his effects. Having been wrong once, he now becomes cautious. Next thing he knows he has assisted himself to be overwhelmed. He now has an inflow channel over which other things, all locks, can now overwhelm him.

Eventually he becomes an “other-determinism”. This, of course, can get nothing done, doesn’t outflow, etc., etc., which adds up to all the faults we find in an aberrated person. For example, if the pc has been overwhelmed by money, he, in money matters, is now money. If you took some money and threw it on the bed it wouldn’t do a thing. It wouldn’t stack itself up or add up accounts. Money doesn’t do anything. Therefore, the pc, as an other-determinism, does nothing really about money—and this we find annoying in him. It is his aberration.

Clearly all one need do as an auditor is to reverse this flow and put the pc at cause over the button, money, to have the other-determinism (and the overwhelmingness) fade away. Using Problems of Comparable Magnitude or Overt-Withhold Straight Wire or simple reaching, the effect is turned to cause and the pc comes out of it.

Assessment is only discovering what has overwhelmed the pc.

Auditing is the reversing of other-determined flows by gradient scales, putting the pc at cause again.

THE BASIC ERROR

The question was asked me, and a fine question it was, “Why does a thetan make his postulate fail to stick in the first place? Why would he say, ‘I can get my postulates all messed up and so cause an overt act’?”

Obviously all aberration is third dynamic. The entrance into self-determinism requires that a thetan conceive the idea of other beings. Also he must then conceive that there are zones of privacy from which he must not communicate.

This error leads to obsessive or fixed channels on which one can be overwhelmed, since he “may not” take the position of cause on this channel.

Avoidance of the places he must not communicate from leads into all manner of difficulties, since this is inhibited communication. A person, therefore, becomes as aberrated as he cannot communicate, as aberrated as he is overwhelmed by Other-Determinisms, as aberrated as he himself dare not assume cause points.

A NEW PROCESS

This leads to a new process, for use “in individual sessions”. The final phrasing is not established at this time.

“From where could you communicate?” or

“Find a place from which you could communicate,” or

“Recall a place from which you have communicated.”

My first tests show this to be very strong but workable. I have not established the depth this reaches nor the complete effectiveness up scale. But it does reverse Other-Determinism heavily.

(This, of course, does not supplant Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire as fundamental and is not for use in HAS Co-auditing, where Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire is the tested allowed process.)

This new process may open a faster route to theta clear, even though that route is already very fast.

Note: Apparently this process, LOCATIONAL COMMUNICATION, relieves the face pressures and terror stomachs (after turning them on) which have proved reluctant. Terror stomachs we have a specific for. Face pressures, we do not have totally taped.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:m .rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

SIX LEVELS OF PROCESSING -- ISSUE 5 

November, 1955

Exerpted from the Book: Scientology 8-8008

	NOTE: Issue Five of the Six Levels of Processing is not the final issue of this operating procedure and is subject to change, especially in the matter of command wording. However, the processes here reproduced have been evolved into a workable state and have been run with success with the commands given. Issue 5 of SLP is released at this time because it is better material, not because it is the final form of SLP.

	With SLP is introduced a method of auditing and a new auditing atmosphere which articulates the attitudes best calculated to maintain continuing stable gains in a case. The auditing atmosphere is A-R-C with gain marked by continuing rises in A-R-C. With SLP a somatic or boil-off means reduced A-R-C and are indications of auditing breaks in A-R-C. With SLP comes the COMMUNICATION BRIDGE, restarting sessions, maintenance of high Reality, and liberal use of processing outside an auditing room.

	All assist type processes are outside SLP except for the present time problem.

	The emphasis of SLP is on bettering the preclear’s reality and power of choice.  				   

Level One  

RUDIMENTS

	These must be established at the beginning of every session. They must be re-established each time the preclear tends to go out of session:

	(a) Find the auditor

	(b) Find the preclear  				

	(c) Find the session environment

	(d) Establish that a session is in progress

	(e) Accept any communication the preclear originates

	(f) Acknowledge every command execution by the preclear

	(g) Agree upon the process and the command form before using and do not 	confuse it

	(h) Use two-way communication liberally

	(i) Follow the Auditor’s Code

	(j) Deal with the present time problem which may be present at the beginning or arise during or recur during a session

	(k) Use a Communication Bridge at every process or area change

	(l) Establish goals by two-way communication and the command “Assign an 	intention to _______” (auditor indicating object)

	(m) Run opening procedure of 8-C as given in The Creation of Human Ability until the preclear is certainly obeying the auditing commands and is under control.  				   

Level Two

LOCATIONAL AND NOT-KNOW PROCESSES

	Run in populated places, ambulant.  

(a) 	Energy Sources:

	Have preclear spot acceptable energy sources. Do not permit him to spot statics unless he is ready for it. Run until preclear can empower terminals. Commands: “Spot an acceptable energy source.”  

(b) 	Spotting Objects:

	Have preclear spot objects in a place with ample space and objects. Commands: “Spot an object.”  (c) Spotting people:

	Have preclear spot people in populated places. Command: “Spot a person.”  				

  (d) 	Separateness from Objects:

	Have preclear spot objects he is separate from, then objects separate from him. Commands: “Locate an object from which you are separate.” “Locate an object which is separate from you.”  

(e) 	Separateness from People:

	Have preclear spot people he is separate from, then have him spot people separate from him. Commands: “Locate a person from whom you are separate.” “Locate a person who is separate from you.”  (f) Waterloo Station:

	Have preclear spot people about whom he can Not-Know something and then have him spot people he is willing to have Not-Know things about him. (Auditor selects persons.) Commands: “Tell me something you wouldn’t mind not-knowing about that person.” “Tell me something you wouldn’t mind that person not-knowing about you.  				  

Level Three

DECISIONAL PROCESSING

	Run in quiet places or auditing rooms.  

(a) 	Think a Placed Thought:

	The object is to train the preclear to think thoughts exterior to his head and thetan bank to obviate the “cave-in phenomena of Axiom 51.” Commands: (auditor indicating object or position) “Think a thought in (on) that _______ “ Alternate command: “Do you see that (object)? Think a thought in (on) it. Did the thought appear where it is?”  

(b) 	Choice Rehabilitation:

	Using the ability acquired in Level Three (a) have the preclear make choices between two objects indicated by auditor. Command: “From (indicated point) make a choice between (indicated positions or objects).”  				

(c) 	Directed Decision Rehabilitation:

	Using the ability acquired in (a) and (b) exercise the preclear on decisions. Command: “Putting the decision on (in) that (indicated object) make a decision about it.”  (d) Permissive Decision Rehabilitation:

	Using the abilities acquired in (a), (b) and (c) turn preclear loose on decisions. Decisions must be outside head and bank. Command: “Decide something.”  				   

Level Four  

OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION (Not-Know Version)

	Done in an auditing room with a book and a bottle.  

Commands:    
“Do you see that book?”  	     
“Walk over to it.”  	     
“Pick it up.”  	     
“Not-know something about its color.”  	     
“Not-know something about its temperature.”  	     
“Not-know something about its weight.”  	     
“Put it in exactly the same place.”  	     
“Do you see that bottle?”  	     
“Walk over to it.”  	     
“Pick it up.”  	     
“Not know something about its color.”  	     
“Not know something about its temperature.”  	     
“Not know something about its weight.”  	     
“Put it in exactly the same place.”  	     
“Do you see that book?”  				   

Level Five

REMEDY OF COMMUNICATION SCARCITY

	The object of this step is to restore abundance on any and all communication possibilities. Done in an auditing room.  				

(a) 	Create confusion:

	Commands: “Mock up a confusion.” Alternate command: “What confusion could you create?”  

(b) 	Creating Terminals:

	The preclear may have to be coached into mocking up unknown confused black terminals and thus into good terminal mock ups. Commands: “Mock up a communication terminal.” “Mock up another communication terminal.”  

(c) 	What wouldn’t you mind communicating with:
	Duplicate the auditing command exactly. Don’t red-herring (go chasing after facsimiles). Command: “What wouldn’t you mind communicating with?”  

(d) 	Creating family terminals:

	Have preclear mock up until he has abundance of any and all persons he has ever used as anchor points. Commands: “Mock up your (father, wife, mother, husband). “Mock him (her) up again.”  				   

Level Six

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS AND SPOTTING SPOTS IN SPACE  

Route One

	An exteriorized step done as given in the Creation of Human Ability.  	

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 DECEMBER 1964

Remimeo 
Franchise 
Sthil Students 
Sthil Co audit
SCIENTOLOGY  0

PROCESSES

The whole case gain to be expected from a pc at Level 0 is an increase of ability to talk to others.

At Level 0 we do not expect or lead people to expect any sudden miracle of physical or mental recovery. Rather, we emphasize that we are getting their feet on the ladder and as they progress up through levels they will achieve all they ever hoped for and more.

Jumping to higher levels leaves the lower level disabilities untouched and while trying to audit somebody at, say, Level III, we will find ourselves struggling with things that should have been handled at Level 0.

Further, this target is the one that beginning pcs make the most gains on in my experience. I recall one near miracle on a girl who couldn’t bring herself to talk to her parents and all I did was get her to tell me what she’d say to them if she could talk to them.

Recalling is too steep for a starting pc. They can’t recall well really until about Level IV when they can be cleaned up on their ARC Breaks with Life.

Here we have the whole design of Level 0:

“Recover the pc’s ability to talk to others freely.”

If you realize that a pc can’t be in session unless he is willing to talk to his auditor, you will also realize that he can’t be in life until he is able to communicate freely with others.

Thus any process that does not forward this end is not for Level 0, no matter how frantic the case may be to become clear yesterday.

The more hysterical a pc is about getting advanced processes or a case gain, the less strenuous the process administered must be. The psychiatrist erred on this one point and it wiped him out as a social benefactor. The more desperate the case, the more desperate were his measures. He was just echoing his patients. It is very important for an auditor to realize this one datum for it is the second guiding rule of Level 0. It is a very senior datum. One must not become desperate and use desperate measures just because the pc is desperate or the family or society is desperate about the pc. The worse off the pc, the lighter the approach to that pc must be.

Psychotics (real, gibbering ones) are below auditing treatment in sessions. The measure used for them should be just rest and isolation from their former environments. And the first process used should be just getting the person to realize you are safe and safe to talk to.

So, although a few cases are psychotic, this still holds good. The auditor must get the pc to realize he is safe—won’t punish, scold, reprimand or betray confidences—and that the auditor will listen.

It doesn’t give the auditor a withhold to not speak of another’s withholds. One can only withhold what one oneself has done. What the pc did or said isn’t even subject for a session on the auditor for withholding it had no aberrative value.

Even when we’re Class IV, we still start all our pcs at the pc’s level, which is, for a beginning pc, Level 0.

So what we are trying to do with our pcs at Level 0 is the following:

1. 	Recover the pc’s ability to talk to others freely;

2. 	Teach the pc by example the auditor is safe to talk to and won’t scold, reprimand, punish or betray, and

3. 	Refuse to engage in desperate measures just because the pc is desperate; and therefore get a real, lasting gain for the pc.

ROUTINES

A routine is a standard process, designed for the best steady gain of the pc at that level. The remedy is different. It is an auditing process which is designed to handle a non-routine situation. The only real remedy at Level 0 is patching up having failed to hear or understand the pc. The rest is all done by routine. The Case Remedies are at Level II and while we all realize that every Level 0 case needs a lot of Level II remedies, we also know that no remedy will work well until the pc is able to talk to others. When you run into trouble at Level 0, there are only 3 reasons possible:

1. 	The pc was not run in a direction or on a process to improve his or her ability to communicate to others;

2. 	The auditor failed to understand the pc’s statements, either words or meanings; or

3. 	The auditor engaged in desperate measures, changed processes, or scolded or did something to lower the pc’s feeling of security in the session.

That’s all. As you go on up through the levels, you will find many other ways a pc can get upset. But at Level 0, the pc is not close enough to reality on his own case to even be touched by these at first. The pc is a long way off when he first starts getting audited. He can only approach his own case by degrees. So a pc, no matter how wildly he or she dramatizes at Level 0, is really only capable of a reality of the smallest kind about self. And such a pc must be able to talk before anything else can happen. Pcs can be ruined by someone who doesn’t grasp that simple fact. Psychiatrists, failing to grasp it, murdered several million people—so it’s no light matter. It’s an important one.

A pc at Level 0 usually can’t even conceive of an overt (a harmful act) done by himself. When they can, they go religiously guilty and seek to atone or some such thing. Become a monk. Or commit suicide.

The reason 33 1/3 percent of all psycho-analytic patients are said to have committed suicide in their first three months of treatment is not that they “came too late” but that a lot of wild data was thrown at them to get at their “source of guilt” and they went head on into the reactive bank, sought to demonstrate their “guilt” by making others guilty and killing themselves.
You don’t want anything out of the pc but an increased ability to talk relaxedly to others without fear, embarrassment, suspicion or guilt. So all processes at Level 0 are arranged accordingly.

WORDINGS

To give all possible wordings of routines that will accomplish the above is completely beyond need.

Once you have the idea of it straight, you can invent them by the dozens.

One doesn’t even have to think of a particular pc. All Level 0 processes are good only when they apply to all pcs.

ROUTINE 0-0 (Zero-Zero)

The starting routine is the most basic of all auditing routines. It is simply “What are you willing to talk to me about?” Pc answers. “What would you like to tell me about that?”

At Level II, the first question alone becomes a remedy. Here the two questions make a routine—and a very effective one it is!

ROUTINE 0-A

This is how the auditor puts together Routine 0-A:

1. 	Make a list of people or things one can’t generally talk to easily! That includes parents, policemen, govemments and God. But it’s a far longer list. The auditor must do this. It must never be published as a “canned” list.

2. 	Using any one of the listed items: “If you could talk to____(listed item) what would you say?”

All right, that’s all there is to finding the commands for Routine 0-A.

One doesn’t get the pc to do the list. The list isn’t done in session. The auditor does it himself on his own time. And each auditor must do his own list for his pcs and add to it from time to time as he thinks of new ones.

The pc isn’t necessarily given any choice of items. The auditor picks one he thinks may fit. That’s easy to do after one session. The pc keeps complaining about parents. OK. Run 0-A on parents.

And flatten it!

By flatten is meant to use that one subject until the pc is darned sure he or she could now talk to the item chosen. If the pc still wants to abuse the item, it isn’t flat. If the pc still wants to do something about the item, it is not flat. When the pc is cheerful about the item or no longer fascinated with it, it’s flat.

Remember, there’s no need to find out what the pc can’t talk to. In fact, most cases you’re better off just to take an item of your own for 0-A and use it. May seem strange, but you’ll have a smoother time of it with the pc. Further you’ll not restimulate (churn up) the pc’s bank so hard.

ROUTINE 0-B

The second routine consists of things to talk about.

One puts the routine together this way:

1. 	The auditor makes a list (not from the pc but himself) of everything he can think of that is banned for any reason from conversation or is not generally considered acceptable for social communication. This includes non-social subjects like sexual experiences, W.C. details, embarrassing experiences, thefts one has done, etc. Things nobody would calmly discuss in mixed company.

2. 	An item from the list is included in the auditing command, “What would you be willing to tell me about _____?” Add the item you choose.

3. 	When they have “run down” (as in clocks) ask them, “Who else could you say those things to?”

4. 	Rechoose a subject on the list.

5. 	Repeat 3.

6. 	Continue to repeat 4. and 5.

Above all, don’t be critical of the pc. And very calmly hear and seek to understand what the pc said. (You never, by the way, seek to find out why the pc reacted or responded in some way. A real blunder at Level 0 is “Why did you feel that way?” Or “Why do you think you can’t say that?” You’re not after the causes of things at Level 0. You will find out why at Level VI!) At Level 0, just keep them talking while you listen. And you use only the subject chosen to keep them talking.

ROUTINE 0-C

Routine 0-C is, of course, old R-1-C renamed. It is done without a meter and it has any subject under the sun included in its command. It is elsewhere covered.

In all the above routines it is vital not to alter the commands given above.

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

There are many more possible routines. But to be a Level Zero Routine it must have as its goal only freeing up the ability of the pc to talk freely to others.

This is not a level to be regarded with a brush-off. It takes a lot of skill to restore a pc’s ability to communicate freely.

When an auditor has that skill he will succeed at all higher levels.

When a pc has that skill regained, his world will look to him to be a far, far better place.

So it is very important to get over this first hurdle. And very important not to dodge it and try to climb the hill anyway. It will become an awfully steep hill.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 DECEMBER 1964
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Co-audit	
SCIENTOLOGY ZERO

(Corrections to HCO Bulletin of 11 December 1964,
“Processes”, and to HCO Bulletin of 10 December 1964,
“Listen Style Auditing”)

ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED)

An additional command increases the usefulness of this routine. It is therefore rewritten as follows:

The auditor makes a list of things people generally can’t talk to easily. That includes parents, policemen, governments and God. But it’s a far longer list. The auditor must compile this list himself or herself out of session. It may be added to by the auditor from time to time. It must never be published as a “canned list”. Scientology Instructors and Scientology Personnel should not be listed on it as it leads to upset in sessions.

STEP 1. The auditor chooses one of the subjects off the list and uses it in Steps 2 and 3 below until the pc is comfortable about it. Subjects from the list can be chosen in sequence or at random. A chosen subject is not left until the pc is comfortable about it. By this is meant, the pc would not feel disturbed talking to the subject chosen.

The auditor does not ask the pc which subject or if it is all right to choose that subject as the pc at the moment of selection is not likely to feel comfortable about any of the listed subjects and so will just reject. No, the auditor just chooses one and starts on it.

STEP 2. The auditor asks, “If you could talk to______(chosen subject), what would you talk about?” Pc answers one or more things at greater or shorter length.

STEP 3. When the pc seems satisfied the question has been answered, the auditor then says, “All right, if you were talking to______(chosen subject in 1 ) about that what would you say, exactly?”

The pc is expected to speak as though talking to the subject chosen in l.

STEP 4. The auditor notes whether pc is comfortable about the subject chosen in Step 1, yet without asking pc. This is done by noting the voice tone or text of what the pc would say. If it is shy, diffident, or if it is belligerent or annoyed, the same subject is retained for a new go with Steps 2 and 3. If the pc seems bright and cheerful, a new subject is chosen from the list for a working over with Steps 2 and 3. If the subject in 1 is retained, the auditor again does Steps 2 and 3 above over and over until the pc is cheerful. A subject chosen in 1 is not left until the pc really can respond cheerfully. When this is accomplished, a new subject is chosen as Step 1 and the process is continued with Steps 2 and 3 using the new subject.

The whole of Routine 0-A is flat when the pc feels far more comfortable about talking to specific items and isn’t shying off from items on the list. It is flat, therefore, when an ability is regained on specific items on the list and the list items aren’t producing big new changes in the pc’s communication ability.
LISTEN STYLE CO-AUDIT

It is expected that by the time an auditor is permitted to do the Zero Routines, Individual Listen Style will have been entered upon.

Until the class seems able to run individual sessions, old “R-1-C” can be used by the auditing supervisor on a group basis using Listen Style Co-audit until the group has the idea of sessions.

Routines work best on Individual Listen Style. The pc is always wondering, in Listen Style Co-audit, if the auditing supervisor is listening to him personally. The auditor is not the receipt point of the pc’s comm in many instances.

Old R-1-C is the best training mechanism to get auditors to run sessions. In this process the auditing supervisor just chooses something for all the pcs to talk to the auditors about, like a dynamic or a common social problem.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

9 OCTOBER 197IRA
ISSUE II
REVISED 21 JULY 1973
REVISED & REISSUED 29 JULY 1974 AS BTB
Remimeo
Class O                                                     CANCELS
Lev 0 Chksht
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 OCTOBER 1971R
SAME TITLE

Auditors Drills Series 2

DRILLS FOR AUDITORS

LEVEL 0 DRILLS

PURPOSE: To improve the quality of auditing by familiarizing Auditors with the exact procedure of each auditing action through the use of drills. 

HOW TO USE:  These drills are in order by levels. The first number indicates the level taught on. Those that begin with TR00 - are level Zero drills. Unbullbaited drills end with odd numbers; and bullbaited drills end in even numbers. 

	Simply start with the first actions and work through the drills applying them unbullbaited and bullbaited, until you are thoroughly familiar with each separate auditing action and can apply it flawlessly, even with distractions. 

	If a student has trouble on a drill, cut back the gradient. On a bullbaited drill this could mean returning the student to the drill on a doll or even to TR 0-4. 

	IMPORTANT. ALSO CHECK THAT THE STUDENT HIMSELF HAS NO MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS ON THE BULLETIN OR DRILL, AS THIS WILL CAUSE HIM TO ALTER-IS AND HAVE DIFFICULTY. GET HIM WORD CLEARED. 
NOTE: If coach upset occurs because of restimulation, fruit words should be inserted in the place of the process key words, for bullbaited drills only. 

FORMAT FOR UNBULLBAITED DRILLS

NAME:   Auditing on a Doll Unbullbaited. 

COMMANDS:   As for each separate process. 

PURPOSE:  To train the student to be able to co-ordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action with the actual doingness of auditing. 

POSITION:  Student seated at a table with E-Meter, worksheets and auditing forms as needed. In the chair opposite the student is a doll occupying the position of the PC. (During the drill the coach is seated or standing beside the Auditor. He does not take the position of the doll.) 

TRAINING STRESS:  This drill is coached. The student sets up the E-Meter and worksheets exactly as in a session - as follows : 

1. 	Set up E-Meter as for E-Meter drills. 

2. 	Set up shield (to prevent TA and admin from being seen by 	PC (doll). 

3. 	Have extra pens under the E-Meter. 

4. 	Have C/S face down between the bottom of the E-Meter and the table. 

5. 	Have W/S and lists readily available in sequence required for the session. 

	Auditor starts the session and runs a standard session with the particular auditing action being taken up on the doll, keeping full session admin and using all standard procedures of the auditing action, coaching on a gradient handling one outness at a time. 

	The drill is done on a steeper and steeper gradient until the student can very quickly do the action correctly and flawlessly. 

	The drill is passed when the student can do the drill flawlessly with good TRs 0-4, correct procedure and commands, without comm lags or confusion;  ie flublessly! 

FORMAT TO BE USED FOR BULLBAITED DRILLS

NAME:   Auditing ______________ bullbaited. 

COMMANDS:   As for each separate auditing action. 

PURPOSE:   To train the student to be able to co-ordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action in a drill similar to a real auditing session and thereby become flawless in applying it. 

POSITION:  Student seated at a table with E-Meter and Auditor forms as needed. In the chair opposite the Auditor is the coach (bullbaiter), as PC. 

TRAINING STRESS:  The drill is the same as for auditing on a doll except that the “PC” coach bullbaits the student Auditor using “fruit” answers during the session in an attempt to throw the student off session. On any lists the coach squeezes the cans to simulate reads. He still uses “fruit” answers (six apples, blue pears) when asked to speak, but as the student Auditor reads off the list items (ex. L3RD) he squeezes the cans for reads. 

	When bullbaiting an auditing action the coach should THROW IN VARIOUS SIGNS OF PC OUT OF SESSIONNESS. (Per HCOB on Good Indicators and BTB on Bad Indicators. The student Auditor must: 

	1. 	Obnose the out of sessionness.

	2. 	Align this to the process and to his level of training.

	3. 	Handle. 

	The PC bullbaiter can throw in situations, originate troubles or gains, be tricky, etc. But he must never lose sight of HCOB 24 May 1968, “Coaching”, especially the second paragraph, “Coach with reality”. 
	Once the coach throws out a situation, etc. he must allow the student Auditor to carry it out and handle the situation before the coach calls a new situation. 

	Stress is on training the student Auditor to have his TRs 0-4 IN on the bullbaiter. 

	The coach (bullbaiter) does the”Start”, flunking or “That’s it”. flunks are given for any improper commands, procedure, comm lags, break in TRs or improper session admin. 

	Each drill is to be done thoroughly building up the speed of Auditor commands and actions. (“It’s the number of auditing commands per unit of auditing time which makes gains in a session,” LRH) 

	The drill is passed when the student can do the drill flawlessly with excellent TRs 0-4, correct procedure and commands, without comm lags or confusion. 

	These are the drills that train the student Auditor to handle all the elements in a session, so be exact and be real. 

	REF:  BTB 5 Jan 72 Rev. 18 June 74, O-IV Expanded Grade 		
	          Processes - Triples Part B Grade 0 Processes

GRADE 0 EXPANDED PROCESSES

TR 00 - 27   R2-31  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 28   R2-31  BULLBAITED
	REF:   Creation of Human Ability p. 74. 
	(Use basic drill format.) 

STEPS:

1. 	R-Factor. 	“We are going to run an expanded Grade 0 Comm process. It’s called Beingness processing.” 

2. 	Clear each of the following commands as each step is reached, before running that command. 

3. 	Begin using the environment and the vicinity that the auditing is taking place in. 

4. 	Clear this command:  “Look around the room and discover some object which you don’t mind being present.” 

5. 	Give the PC the command in No. 4. 

6. 	The PC must answer the question. TR 0-4 is used fully. The PC must actually locate something in the environment, not a picture. Auditor obnoses the PC is looking out not introverted. ‘ 

7. 	When the first command is answered, ask the PC to “Locate something else you don’t mind being present.” 

8. 	The Auditor runs the second command until all comm lag on the question is flat, or F/N , Cog, VGIs. When this happens the Auditor indicates the F/N, if one, and then picks out an object which the preclear was comfortable about. For example: the door. 

9. 	Now say to thePC: “Now see this door here.” 

10. 	Immediately when No. 9 is done, say “All right, what else wouldn’t you mind this door being? As the PC answers this the Auditor continues to ask the same question, using the same object, until all comm lag is gone from the question, or F/N, Cog, VGIs. 

11. 	When all comm lag is flat in No. 10, the Auditor selects other objects in the area and uses the same question on them. Ex: “What wouldn’t you mind this chair being?” “What else wouldn’t you mind this chair being?” to no comm lag or F/N, Cog, VGIs. 

12. 	When the preclear is perfectly willing to have anything in the room be a large number of things, including the walls, the ceiling and the floor, ask “Now what wouldn’t you mind your body being?”

13. 	Take whatever the PC says, acknowledge it. 

14. 	Say  “And now what else wouldn’t you mind your body being?” Repeat this question until the PC is doing is comfortably and with no comm lag or F/N, Cog, VGIs. 

15. 	Then ask:  “Now lets find something you wouldn’t mind being.” Take the PC’s answer and acknowledge.

16. 	Then run repetitively “What else wouldn’t you mind being?” to F/N, Cog, VGIs. 

TR 00 - 29  Axiom 51 Comm Processing  UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00 - 30  Axiom 51 Comm Processing  BULLBAITED 
	REF:   PAB 56
	(Use basic drill format,)

STEPS:

1. 	R-Factor,  “We are going to run an expanded Grade 0 Comm Process, It’s called Axiom 51 Comm Processing.” 

2. 	A list of reading terminals is culled from the work-sheets, White Form, that read when the PC mentioned them. 

	Also, “Clara”, (the PC’s wife), should be expanded to “a wife” and “a woman” and added to the culled list. This is an example of how an item can be expanded. One would only run the added items of “a wife” and “a woman” if they read on test, of course. The items do not have to be checked for a read if they once read on the worksheets. 

3. 	Clear the flow one command, “What wouldn’t (same item) mind you communicating with?” 

4. 	Say to PC, “This is the Process.” 

5. 	Run command repetitively, to F/N, Cog, VGIs. Indicate the F/N after PC’s cognition and VGIs. 

6.    	Clear the flow two command and run as above in steps 4 and 5. 

7. 	Clear the flow three command and run as above in steps 4 and 5. 

8. 	Take next best reading item, repeat No.s 3,4 5,6, and 7. 

9. 	Handle all items per No. 8. 

TR 00 - 31  PAB 54 Comm Process  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 32  PAB 54 Comm Process  BULLBAITED
	REF: PAB 54
	(Use basic drill format.) 
STEPS:

1. 	R-Factor: “We are going to run a Grade 0 communication process. The process is called ‘Comm Process’.” 
2. 	Clear “think” with a dictionary, as a doingness, an action. The PC is on the cans when clearing the command. 

3. 	Clear thought with a dictionary as an idea, consideration, decision. 

4. 	Clear 1st command, “Think a thought”. Ensure PC knows to tell auditor what it was he thought. 

5. 	Say to PCs “This is the process.” 

6. 	Run repetitively “Think a thought”, to F/N, Cog, VGIs. PC will voice the EP that he knows absolutely that he is thinking the thought. 

7. 	Every 5 commands or so ask the PC to place the thought he just thought in an object in the room. This action getting the PC into the practice of placing the thought somewhere, and thoughts are less likely to appear suddenly and magically out of his machinery. 

8. 	When F/N, Cog, VGIs is reached, indicate the F/N after PC’s Cog, then clear the word “receive” with a dictionary. 

9. 	Clear the flow one command, “Tell me a thought you would be willing to receive from another.” 

10. 	Say toPC: “This is the process”. 

11. 	Run to F/N, Cog, VGIs the above command repetitively. Indicate the F/N after PC’s Cog and VGIs. 

12. Clear the flow two command: “Tell me a thought another would be willing to receive from you.” 
13. Run process as in steps 10 and 11. 

14. On flow three, “Tell me a thought others would be willing to receive from others”, clear the command and run as in steps 10 and 11. 

TR 00 - 33  An Obvious Basic Process  UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00 - 34  An Obvious Basic Process  BULLBAITED
	REF: HCOB 17 Mar 60 Standardized Sessions 
	(Use basic drill format.) 

STEPS: 

1. 	R-Factors “We are going to run an expanded Grade O process, it’s called ‘An obvious basic process’.” Clear the words: A, about, energy, matter, space, think, time. 

2. 	Give R-Factors “There are 5 commands for this process. Each is run separately.” Run each command repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs; the commands are: 

“Think about matter”
“Think about energy”
“Think about space”
“Think about time”
“Think about a thetan”

3. 	Clear the first command and tell the PC that you want him to tell you what he thinks about. 

4.	 Say to the PC, “This is the process.” 

5. 	Run the command to F/N, Cog, VGIs indicating the F/N after the PC’s Cog and VGIs. 

6. 	When the first command has been run to EP run the next command and so on through all 5 commands as per steps 3,4 and 5. 

TR 00 - 35  An Affinity Process  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 36  An Affinity Process  BULLBAITED
	REF: HCOB 4 May 1959 An Affinity Process
	(Use basic drill format.) 

STEPS:

1. 	R-Factors “We are going to run an expanded Grade 0 comm process; this process is called “An affinity process.” 

2. 	Clear the flow one command. “Recall a time another communicated.” 

3. 	Run repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating the F/N after PC’s Cog and VGIs.

4. 	Clear the flow two commands “Recall a time you communicated”. 

5. 	Run the process as in step 3. 

6. 	Clear the flow three commands “Recall a time others communicated”. 

7. 	Run the process as in step 3. 

TR 00 - 37  In Sequence  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 38  In Sequence  BULLBAITED
	REF:   HCOB 2 Mar 1961 New Pre Hav Command
	(Use basic drill format.) 

STEPS:

1. 	R-Factor: “We are going to run a Grade 0 process called “In sequence”. It has two commands to each flow. 

2. Clear the word “no-communication”. 

3. Clear the flow one command: 

	“Recall anothers  communication with you.”
	“Recall anothers no-communication with you.” 

4. 	Say toPC:  “This is the process.” 

5. 	Run repetitively 1-2-1-2-1 etc. to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating F/N after PC has Cog, VGIs. 

6. 	Repeat step 2, 3 and 4 on flows two and three of the process. See BTB 5 Jan 72R Rev 18 June 74 O-IV Expanded Grade Processes - Triples Part B Grade 0 Processes for reference. 

TR 00 - 39  Universe Processes  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 40  Universe Processes  BULLBAITED
	REF:   HCOB 25 Sept 59 HAS Co Audit
	(Use basic drill format.) 

STEPS: 

1. 	Give PC R-Factor: “We are going to run a Grade 0 process called ‘Universe Processing’.”

2. 	Clear the words: The physical universe, a body, a mind, a thetan. Watch for reads while clearing and take up those that read, running largest read first. If none read on clearing, then assess the list. If none read, check the items with suppress and invalidate. 

3. 	Run reading items in the commands listed below, 3 flows to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog VGIs. 

4. 	Say toPC: “This is the process.”

	F1.  	“From where could __________ communicate to you?”

	F2. 	“From where could you communicate to __________?”

	F3. 	“From where could __________ communicate to others?” 

TR 00 - 41  Locational Body Comm Process  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 42  Locational Body Comm Process  BULLBAITED
	REF: HCOB 21 July 1959 HGC Allowed Processes
	(Use basic drill format.)

STEPS:

1. 	Give PC R-Factors “We are going to run an Expanded Grade O process; it’s called Locational Body Comm Process.” 

2. 	Cull reading body parts from worksheets or make a list of body parts, assess them  and run reading items, taking largest read first. 

3. 	Say to PC, “This is the process”. 

4. 	Commands are the same as in above drill. 
5. 	Run to F/N , Cog, VGIs indicating the F/N after the Cog VGIs.                   

TR 00 - 43  Clearing Procedure  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 44  Clearing Procedure  BULLBAITED
	REF: HCOB 21 July 1959 HGC Allowed Processes
	(Use basic drill format.)

TRAINING STRESS:  This drill is the same as Basic Drill
Format except that for the assessment that is done on step
3, use the following instead of the real items: 

pink oranges 
red apples 
pears 
strawberry 
banana 
lemon 
lime. 

STEPS: 

1. 	R-Factor: “We are going to run an Expanded Grade 0 Comm Process”. 

2. 	“I am going to do an assessment on the meter; you don’t have to say anything. OK?” Handle TRs 0-4. 

Assess:
Male bodies
Female bodies
Bodies
Matter
Energy
Space
Time

4. 	Clear the flow one commands “From where could __________ communicate to you?” 
	(Using best reading item) Run to F/N, Cog, VGIs. 

5. 	Run flows two and three in the same manner. 

	F2. 	“From where could you communicate to __________ 			(item)?” 
	F3. 	“From where could __________ communicate to others?” 

6. 	Take the next most reading item, use it in the commands and run to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating the F/N after the Cog VGIs. 

7. 	Take all reading items from the assessment and handle as in step 6, in descending order of reads until all are handled. 

TR 00 - 45  Process S-2  UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00 - 46  Process S-2  BULLBAITED 
	REF: HCOB 21 July 1959 HGC Allowed Processes. 
	(Use basic drill format.) 

STEPS: 

1. 	Give PC R-Factor “We are going to run an Expanded Grade 0 process, it’s called ‘Process S-2’ it is run repetitively.” 

2. 	Clear the word “victim”. 

3. 	Clear the commands 
	F1. “From where could a victim communicate to you?” 

4. 	Say, this is the process run it to F/N, Cog, VGIs indicating the F/N after Cog, VGIs. 

5. 	Clear flows two and three and run as in step 4. 

	F2. 	“From where could you communicate to a victim?” 
	F3. 	“From where could a victim communicate to another or others?” 
TR 00 - 47  R2-60  The Hidden communication  UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00 - 48  R2-60  The Hidden Communication  BULLBAITED 
	REF:  Creation of Human Ability P. 152 
		Scientology  0-8  P. 110 and P. 112. 
	(Use basic drill format.) 

STEPS:

1. 	R-Factor:  “We are going to run an Expanded Grade 0 Comm Process, it is called R2-60. 

2. 	Clear each of the commands as each step is reached, before running that command, clearing the word “Spot” and the key word first (such as “hidden” and “protected” etc). 

3.   	The commands are as per HCOB 5 Jan 72R Rev. 18 June 74 O-IV Expanded Grade Processes - Triples Part B Grade O Processes. Run as per Creation of Human Ability - R2 60. 

4. 	Run each command to F/N, Cog. VGIs, indicating the F/N after Cog and VGIs. 

TR 00 - 49 R2-60  Know to Mystery  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 50 R2-60  Know to Mystery  BULLBAITED
	REF:  Creation of Human Ability P. 153. 
	(Use basic drill format.) 

STEPS: 

1. 	Give PC R-Factor: “We are going to run an expanded Grade 0 process, it’s called R2-60 Know to Mystery.” 

2. 	Clear each of the commands as each step is reached, before running that command. 

3. 	Run each command repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs indicating the F/N after Cog and VGIs. 

4.   	The commands are as per HCOB 5 Jan 72R Rev. 18 June 74 0-IV Expanded Grade Processes - Triples Part B Grade O Processes. 

TR 00 - 51  Expanded CDEI Comm Process  UNBULLBAITED 
	REF:  HCOB 13 Oct 1959 DEI Expanded Scale 
		Scientology 0-8 P.109-112. 

TRAINING STRESS:  This drill is done with Basic Drill Format except that the student Auditor actually gets the items he uses on the doll from a PC folder. He goes through the folder and culls out reading terminals from the White Form and worksheets and makes up a list as in step 2. He then continues with the steps. The coach also checks to see that the list was correctly made up. 

TR 00 - 52  Expanded CDEI Comm Process  BULLBAITED

TRAINING STRESS:  In doing this drill with a PC bullbaiter do not          real terminals taken off the worksheets. Use “fruit” words instead. For example, a false APPLE. The bullbaiter squeezes the cans for reads; and as always uses made up answers, not real answers- flunks are given for out TRs and incorrect session procedure. The drill is passed when the student can do it correctly despite distractions. 

STEPS: 

1. 	R-Factor: “We are going to run an Expanded Grade 0 Comm Process. I am going to do an assessment on the meter. You don’t have to say anything. OK?” 

2. 	Assess a group of terminals that have been culled from reading items from the White Form, worksheets, etc. Items would be “mother” or “mothers” not “your mother”. A body not your body. A cat, not your cat. 

3. 	Take the best read, and clear the command. Run each command to EP and then clear and run the next command. The item is the one found by assessment and then fitted in the commands. 

4.   	The commands are as per BTB 5 Jan72R Rev 18 June 74 O-IV Expanded Grade Processes - Triples Part B Grade 0 Processes. 

5. 	Take the next best reading terminal that read on assessment and repeat No. 3 and 4. 

6. 	Continue until all terminals that read are handled. This process can be used over and over, all that changes is the terminals used in the commands. 

	Of course, the same terminals are not run twice, and terminals are not run that the PC has not mentioned in a session and the terminals must have “read” in order to be run. 

TR 00 - 53  Locational Comm Process  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 54  Locational Comm Process  BULLBAITED
	REF:  HCOB 7 May 1959 New Processes
	(Use basic drill format.) 

STEPS:

1. 	R-Factor: “We are going to run an Expanded Grade0 Comm Process.” 

2. 	Indicate you are going to assess some questions on the meter. 

3. 	Clear Assess, tell thePC: “I am going to do an assessment on the meter. You don’t have to say anything. Is that OK with you?” and handle with TR 0-4. 

4. 	Assess: 

	a. 	From where could another communicate to you? 

	b. 	Find a place from which another could communicate to you. 

	c. 	Recall a place from which another has communicated to you. 

	(These are the flow one commands of these processes which are now tripled.) 

	Check with PC if there was anything he didn’t understand. If so, clear it up and if you had a read on a misunderstood then reassess a, b, and c. If all OK, continue. 

5. 	Take the biggest reading question (SF,F,LF,LFBD) and run that one only repetitively on three flows, each to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating the F/N after Cog, VGIs. 

TR 00 - 55  Remedy of Comm Scarcity UNBULLBAITED 
TR 00 - 56  Remedy of Comm Scarcity  BULLBAITED 
	REF:  8-8008 P. 137 “Six Levels of Processing, Issue 5”            
	(Use basic drill format.) 

STEPS:

1. 	R-Factors “We are going to run Expanded Grade 0 Comm Process; it’s called ‘Remedy of Comm Scarcity’.”

2. 	Clear each command as you get to it. 

3. 	Say to PCs “This is the process.” 

4. 	Run commands repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs. 

	Fl.  “What wouldn’t another mind you communicating with?” 
	F2. “What wouldn’t you mind another communicating with?” 
	F3. “What wouldn’t another mind others communicating with?” 

	Auditor continues to obnose PC and with a wide F/N , Cog, VGIs and PC in PT and no longer “in” the process, the Auditor indicates the F/N, “Thank you. Your needle is floating.” 

TR 00 - 57  Grade 0 Triples  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 58  Grade 0 Triples  BULLBAITED
	REFS: HCOB 11 Dec 64 Scientology 0 Processes 
		HCOB 26 Dec 64 Routine 0 - A Expanded 
		BTB 5 Jan 72R Rev. 18 June 74 O-IV 
		Expanded Grade Processes - Triples Part B Grade 0 Processes. 
		(Use Basic drill format)

STEPS:

1. 	R-Factor: “We are going to run Grade 0 - Communications.” 

2. 	R-Factor: “The first process is called Auditor - PC Clearance.” 

3. 	Clear the first two commands on flow one. 

	00F-A1 	“What are you willing for me to talk to you about?” 

			“What would you like me to tell you about that?”

4. 	Say, “This is the process.” Run the two commands to F/N, Cog, VGIs. Indicate the F/N and note on W/Ss. 

5. 	If PC bogs use prompters: 

     	a. 	“Have you found something you think would make me think less of you?”

	b. 	“Is there something you thought of that you think I wouldn’t understand?” 

	c. 	“Have you said something you felt I didn’t understand?” 
		“If so, tell me again.” 

	d. 	“Have you found something you haven’t understood?” 
		“If so, tell me about it.” 

6. 	Do steps 3 - 5 with flow two (00F-A2) and three (00F-A3) . 

	00F-A2 	“What are you willing to talk to me about?” 

			“What would you like to tell me about that?” 

	00F-A3 	“What are you willing for me to talk to others 				 about?” 

			“What would you like me to tell others about 				 that?” 

7. 	R-Factor: 	“We are now going to run a process called 0-0 . 

8. 	Clear the first two commands on flow one. 

	00F-l 		“What are you willing for another to talk to you about?” 

			“What would you like him/her to tell you about that?” 

9. 	Follow steps 4 and 5. 

10. 	Do step 8 on flow 2 and 3 of 0-0. 
	00F-2 	“What are you willing to talk to another about?” 

			“What would you like to tell another about that?”

	00F-3 	“What are you willing for another to talk to others about?”
 
			“What would you like him/her/them to tell others about that?”.

11.	Follow steps 4 and 5.

Grade 0 Process 0A

1. 	Auditor chooses person by making a list of people it would be difficult for that PC to talk to or listen to and taking each item in turn. (Ref. HCOB 26 Dec 64 O-A Expanded.) Gives PC R-Factor: “We are going to run process “0A” . 

2. 	Clear the command for flow 1. 

	AO F-1 	“If ______ could talk to you, what would he talk about?”  

		   	“All right, if he were talking to you about that, 				 		  what would he/she say exactly?” 

3. 	“This is the process.” 

	Run each terminal to F/N. Run to F/N, Major Cog, VGIs on process. 

4. 	R-Factors “We are going to run Flow 2.” 

5. 	Clear the commands and clear that in the 2nd command the PC is to answer as if he were actually talking to that terminal. 

	0A F-2 	“If you could talk to ______ what would you talk about?” 

			“All right, if you were talking to about that, what 			 			  would you say exactly?” 

	(PC is expected to speak as though talking to the subject chosen.) 

6. 	“This is the process.”” 

	Run each to F/N. Run to F?N, Major Cog, VGIs on Process. 

7. 	R-Factor: “We are going to run flow 3.” 

8. 	Clear the commands. 

	0A F-3 	“If could talk to ________what would he/she/they 			 			  talk about”

			“All right, if ________ was talking to about that 				 		  what would he/she/they say exactly?” 

	(Auditor chooses 2 people who would have difficulty talking to each other.) 

9. 	“This is the process.” Run each to F/N. Run to F/N Major Cog, VGIs on process. 

GRADE O PROCESS 0B

(per HCOB 11.12.64, Zero Processes.) 

1. 	R-Factors “We are going to run a process 0B.” 

2. 	The Auditor has canned list which he has made and chooses in turn subjects the PC would find it difficult to hear another talk about. 

3. He clears the F-l commands. 

	0B F-1 	“What are you willing to have some one else tell 			 			  you about ________ ?” 

			“Who else could he/she say those things to?’ 

4. 	Run each subject to F/N. Run to F/N, Major Cog, VGIs on the on the Process. 

5. 	R-Factor flow 2. 

6. 	(Auditor has made a canned list and chooses in turn subjects the PC would have difficulty talking about.) He clears the commands. 

	0B F-2 	“What are you willing to tell me about ? “ 

			“Who else could you say those things to?” 

7. 	Run each subject to F/N. Run to F/N, Major Cog, VGIs on the Process. 

8. 	R-Factor flow 3. 

9. 	The Auditor has a canned list and chooses in turn subjects PC would have difficulty having others discuss. 

10. 	The Auditor clears the commands for flow 3. 
	0B F-3 	“What are you willing to have someone tell others 			 	                          about             ?” 

			“Who else could another say those things to?”

11. 	Run each subject to F/N. Run to F/N, Major Cog, VGIs on the Process. 

TR 00 - 59  Havingness  UNBULLBAITED
TR 00 - 60  Havingness  BULLBAITED
	REF:  5 Jan 72R Rev. 18 June 74 O-IV Expanded 
	Grade Processes - Triples Part B Grade 0 Processes. 

1. 	R-Factor: “We are going to run a havingness process.” 

2. 	Clear 1st flow command. 

	0H F-1 	“What solid could you understand?” 

3. 	Run repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs. 

4. 	Repeat 2 and 3 with the 2nd flow. 

	0H F-2 	“What solid could another understand?” 

5. 	Repeat 2 and 3 with the 3rd flow. 

	0H F3 	“What solid could another get others to understand?” 

	Revised & Reissued as BTB
	By Flag Mission 1234

	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
	2nd: Molly Harlow

	Authorized by AVU

	for the
BDCS:SW:AL:MH:al 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N 

15  NOVEMBER 1976
ISSUE II
Remimeo
CANCELS BTB 4 JANUARY 1972RB
“0-IV EXPANDED GRADE 
PROCESSES - TRIPLES
PART B GRADE 0 PROCESSES”

( Revisisions in italics )

0-IV EXPANDED GRADE PROCESSES - QUADS 
PART B 
GRADE 0 PROCESSES        

This bulletin gives a checklist of the Expanded Quad Grade Process commands. It is not all the possible processes for this level. If more are needed to attain full EP for this level additional processes can be found in LRH Bulletins, Books, Tapes, PABs and other issues.

Each process is run to its full EP of F/N, Cog, VGIs. Any previously run are rehabbed or completed and any missing flows run. A copy of this checklist is placed in the folder of a pc being run on Expanded Grades and the processes checked off with the date each is run to EP.

On any of these processes where the pc answers only yes or that he did it find out what it was by asking”What was it?” This keeps in the itsa line from the pc to auditor.

This bulletin does not replace Source data.

R2-31 BEINGNESS PROCESSING
Ref: CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY

“Look around the room and discover some object which you don’t mind being present.” 
“Locate something else you don’t mind being present.”

TO NO COMM LAG OR TO EP	_________

“Now see this (room object) here?” 
“All right, what else wouldn’t you mind this (room object) being?”
	TO NO COMM LAG OR TO EP	_________

“Now what wouldn’t you mind your body being?” 
“And now what else wouldn’t you mind your body being?”

	TO NO COMM LAG OR TO EP	_________

“Now let’s find something you wouldn’t mind being.” 
“What else wouldn’t you mind being?”
	TO EP	_________

This process is not Quaded as it would change the process but it is included in this BTB as it is part of Expanded Grade 0.
AXIOM 51 COMM PROCESSING 
Ref: PAB 56, 8 July 1955.
Run on list of charged terminals culled from worksheets.

F-1 	“What wouldn’t _____ mind you communicating with?”

		TO EP	_________

F-2 	“What wouldn’t you mind_____communicating with?”

		TO EP	_________

F-3 	“What wouldn’t others mind_____communicating with?” 	

		TO EP	_________

F-0 	“If you were a_____what wouldn’t you mind yourself 	
	communicating with?”

		TO EP	_________

PAB 54 COMM PROCESS
Ref: PAB 54, 10 Jun 55.

“Think a thought”	TO EP	_________

	Part of the”Think a thought” process is to have the preclear place the thought in various locations after he has thought it. Have his shoe think a thought, have a rug think a thought. This gets the preclear into the practice of placing the thought somewhere. Thus, thoughts are less likely to appear suddenly and magically out of his machinery.

F-1 	“Tell me a thought you would be willing to receive from another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Tell me a thought another would be willing to receive from you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Tell me a thought others would be willing to receive from others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Tell me a thought you would be willing to have.”

	TO EP	_________

AN OBVIOUS PROCESS
Ref: HCO B 17 Mar 60 STANDARDIZED SESSIONS

Think about matter	TO EP	_________
Think about energy	TO EP	_________
Think about space	TO EP	_________
Think about time	TO EP	_________
Think about a thetan	TO EP	_________

A BASIC COMM PROCESS
Ref: HCO B 4 May 59 AN AFFINITY PROCESS

F-1 	“Recall a time another communicated to you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Recall a time you communicated to others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Recall a time others communicated to others.”	

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“Recall a time you caused yourself to communicate.”

	TO EP	_________

IN SEQUENCE
Ref: HCO B 2 Mar 1961 NEW PRE-HAVE COMMAND

F-1 	“Recall another’s communication with you.”
	“Recall another’s no-communication with you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Recall your communication with another.”
	“Recall your no-communicat ion with another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Recall another’s conmunication with others.”
	“Recall another’s no-communication with others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“Recall a communication of yours.”
	“Recall a no-communication of yours.”

	TO EP	_________

UNIVERSE PROCESSES
Ref: HCO B 25 Sept 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT

Run: 	The physical universe, a Body, a Mind, a Thetan.

F-1 	“From where could_____ communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to_____ ?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could_____communicate to others?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“If you were a_____ from where could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

LOCATIONAL BODY COMM PROCESS
Ref: HCO B 21 July 59 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

	Run on charged body parts, culled from worksheets or make a list of body parts, assess, and run on reading items.

F-1 	“From where could a _____communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to a_____ ?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could_____communicate to others?”

	TO EP	_________
	
F-0	“If you were a_____ from where could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

A CLEARING PROCEDURE
Ref: HCO B 21 July 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

	Assess: Male bodies, Female bodies, Bodies, Matter, Energy, Space, Time.

	Run all reading items in order of reads.

F-1 	“From where could (item) communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to (item)?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could (item) communicate to others?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“If you were a (item) from where could you communicate?”
		
	TO EP	_________
PROCESS S-2 
Ref; HCO B 21 July 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

F-1 	“From where could a victim communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________
F-2 	“From where could you communicate to a victim?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could a victim communicate to another or others?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“If you were a victim from where could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

R2-60 HIDDEN KNOWINGNESS (THE HIDDEN COMMUNICATION)
Ref: CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, run per instructions.  
SCIENTOLOGY 0-8 

F-1 	“Spot some communications another has hidden from you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications you have hidden from another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications another has hidden from others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Spot some communications you have hidden from yourself.”

	TO EP	_________

F-1 	“Spot some communications another has protected from you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications you have protected from another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications another has protected from others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Spot some communications you have protected from yourself.”

	TO EP	_________

F-1 	“Spot some communications of yours another has owned.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications of another you have owned.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications of another others have owned.”
	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Spot some communications you have owned.”

	TO EP	_________

F-1 	“Spot some communications of yours another has inhibited.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications of another you have inhibited.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications of another others have inhibited.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Spot some communications of yours you have inhibited.”

	TO EP	_________

F-1 	“Spot some communications another has enforced on you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications you nave enforced on another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications another has enforced on others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Spot some communications of yours you have enforced on 
	yourself.”

	TO EP	_________

F-1 	“Spot some communications another has desired from you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications you have desired from another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications others have desired from others.”

	TO EP	_________
F-0	“Spot some communications of yours you have desired for
	yourself.”

	TO EP	_________

R2-60 CONTINUED
Ref: CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY (Run per instructions, each command to EP)
“Spot some hidden knowingness”	TO EP	_________

“Spot some protected knowingness”	TO EP	_________

“Spot some owned knowingness”	TO EP	_________

“Spot some inhibited knowingness”	TO EP	_________

“Spot some enforced knowingnessl	TO EP	_________

“Spot some desired knowingness”	TO EP	_________

“Spot some knowingness people could be 
curious about”	TO EP	_________

R2-60 HIDDEN KNOWINGNESS (KNOW TO MYSTERY)
Ref CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, run per instructions

“Spot some mysteries” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden sex”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden thinking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden emotions”	TO EP 	_________
“Spot some hidden looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected mysteries”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected sex”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected thinking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned mysteries”	TO EP 	_________
“Spot some owned sex”	TO EP 	_________
“Spot some owned eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned thinking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited mysteries”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited sex” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited eating” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited symbols” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited thinking” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited efforts” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced mysteries”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced sex”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced thinking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired mysteries”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired sex”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired thinking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious mysteries”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious sex”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious thinking”	TO EP 	_________
“Spot some curious efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious looking” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious knowing”	TO EP	_________

EXPANDED CDEI COMM PROCESS
Ref: HCO B 13 Oct 1959 DEI EXPANDED SCALE
SCIENTOLOGY 0-8 pg. 

	Assess a group of terminals culled from worksheets (or a prepared assessment list by the C/S”Bodies, people, etc.”).

	Run each reading item in the following:

F-1 	“From where could a hidden _____communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to a hidden_____ ?”	

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could a hidden_____ communicate to others?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“If you were a hidden _____ from where could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

Repeat above four flows using each of the following in place of”hidden”:

A protected	TO EP	_________
An owned	TO EP	_________
A false	TO EP	_________
A no	TO EP	_________
An unwanted	TO EP	_________
A necessary	TO EP	_________
A desirable	TO EP	_________
An interesting	TO EP	_________
An unknown	TO EP	_________
A known 	TO EP	_________

LOCATIONAL COMM PROCESSES
Ref: HCO B 7 May 1959 NEW PROCESS

F-1 	“From where could another communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to another?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could another communicate to others?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“From where could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

OR
	
F-1 	“Find a place from which another could communicate to you.”	

	TO EP	_________
F-2 	“Find a place from which you could communicate to another.”	

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Find a place from which another could communicate to others.”	
	
	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“Find a place from which could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

OR

F-1 	“Recall a place from which another has communicated to you.”	
	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Recall a place from which you have communicated to another.”	

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Recall a place from which another has communicated to others.”	

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“Recall a place from which you have communicated?”

	TO EP	_________

REMEDY OF COMM SCARCITY
Ref: 8-8008,”Six Levels of Processing Issue 5”

F-1 	“What wouldn’t another mind you communicating with?”	

	TO EP	_________
	
F-2 	“What wouldn’t you mind another communicating with?”	

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“What wouldn’t another mind others communicating with?”			

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“What wouldn’t another mind yourself communicating with?”			

	TO EP	_________

GRADE ZERO QUADS
O-O, O-A-OB
Ref: HCO B 11 Dec 64 SCIENTOLOGY 0 PROCESSES
	         26 Dec 64 ROUTINE 0-A EXPANDED				
	
STEP ONE: AUD-PC CLEARANCE
	
OOF-A1 	“What are you willing for me to talk to you about?”	 
	“What would you like me to tell you about that?”			

	TO EP	_________

OOF-A2 	“What are you willing to talk to me about?”
	“What would you like to tell me about that?”	
			
	TO EP	_________

OOF-A3 	“What are you willing for me to talk to others about?”
	“What would you like me to tell others about that?”	

	TO EP	_________

OOF-A0 	“What are you willing to tell about yourself?”
	“What would you like to say about that?”
	TO EP	_________
	
STEP TWO: O-O 

OOF-1 	“What are you willing for another to talk to you about?”
	“What would you like him/her to tell you about that?”	

	TO EP	_________

OOF-2 	“What are you willing to talk to another about?”
	“What would you like to tell another about that?”	

	TO EP	_________

OOF-3 	“What are you willing for another to talk to others about?”
	“What would you like him/her/them to tell others about that?”	

	TO EP	_________

OOF-0 	“What are you willing to let yourself talk about?”
	“What would you like to say about that?”

	TO EP	_________

STEP THREE - OA

	Auditor chooses person by making a canned list of people it would be difficult to talk to or listen to and taking each item in turn. (Ref: HCQ B 26.12.64 0-A EXPANDED.) The item being run must read in the command when the command is cleared for O-A and O-B.

OA F-1 	“If could talk to you what would he talk about?” 
	“Alright, if he/she were talking to you about that, what would 
	he/she say exactly?”
		TO EP	_________

OA F-2 	“If you could talk to what would you talk about?” 
	“Alright, if you were tarking to about that, what would you 
	say exactly?” 
	(Pc is expected to speak as though talking to the subject chosen.) 

		TO EP	_________

OA F-3 	(Auditor chooses 2 people who would have difficulty talking to each other)

	“If could talk to what would he/she/they talk about?”
	“Alright, if was talking to about that what would he/she/they say
	exactly?”	
	TO EP	_________

OA F-0	“If you could talk about yourself what would you talk about?”
	“Alright, if you were talking about that what would you say 
	exactly?”
	TO EP	_________

STEP FOUR - OB
(Per HCO B 11.12.64 ZERO PROCESSES)
(Auditor makes a canned list (not from the pc but himself) of everything he can think of that is banned for any reason from conversation or is not generally corlsiderecl acceptable for social communication, See HCO B 11.12.64.)

OB F-1 	“What are you willing to have someone else tell you about _____?” 
	“Who else could he/she say those things to?”

	TO EP	_________

OB F-2 	“What are you willing to tell me about_____?”
	“Who else could you say those things to?”

	TO EP	_________

OB F-3 	“What are you willing to have someone tell others about_____ ?” 
	“Who else could another say those things to?”

	TO EP	_________

OB F-0	“What are you willing to let yourself say about_____?”
	“Who else could you say those things to?”

	TO EP	_________

HAVINGNESS

F-1 	“What solid could another have you understand?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“What solid could you have another understand?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“What solid could others have  others understand?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“What solid could you have yourself understand?”

	TO EP	_________

Reissued as BTB
by Flag Mission 1234
I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd:  Molly Harlow
Revised by FMO 1689 I/C
for Tr & Serv Aide
Approved by Snr C/S Flag, CS-5

Authorized by AVU
and LRH Pers Com

BDCS:KU:DM:JE:JG:PD:AL:MH:lf	for the
Copyright © 1973, 1974, 1976	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY