SCIENTOLOGY A Handbook For Use by L. Kin

SCIENTOLOGY A Handbook For Use by L. Kin

Сообщение Timecops » 05 дек 2011, 07:26

Web auditing in any place on the planet

SCIENTOLOGY A Handbook For Use by L. Kin

Volume 2
The Procedures
Professional Application


“I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research.”

Albert Einstein
(The World As I See It.)

Copyright (©)1992 by L. Kin, all rights reserved

SCIENTOLOGY-A Handbook For Use? Subtitles: The Procedures + Professional Application

Copyright (©) 1992 by Edition ScienTerra, a subdivision of VAP Publishers, Wlesbaden, Germany. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information or orders please address VAP Delivery Service, Post Box 1180. D-4994 Preussisch Oldendorf - Germany.

ISBN 3-922367-26-7, Verkehrs-Nr. 16645 (BAG) First printing 1992 Printed in Germany

Table of Contents

A Comment By The Publisher 7
Introduction 10
The Training Routines (TRs)- Basic Elements of Communication 11
Auditor and Pc- an Introduction 15
The session in practice 15
The Auditor’s Code 15
The auditing communication cycle 16
Mass and significance 16
Trust 16
Who to audit? 17
Exchange 17
The auditor’s tools: A) Simple Techniques...........................................19
Assists 19
“Book One” auditing 20
Session “admin” 21
Emphasis on training 21
The auditor’s tools: b) Objective Processes..........................................22
General description 22
Procedure 24
End phenomenon 27
Who needs objectives? 27
Instructions to the pc 28
The auditor's tools: C) Postulate Auditing ...........................................30
Introduction 30
Finding something to audit 30
The technique of lock-scanning 31
Narrative style 31
Finding the postulate in the incident 32
Repeater technique 33
Sticky sessions 34
Stripping valences 35
Summary 35
The procedure step by step 36
Session breaks 39
The auditor’s tools: D) Auditing with the E-Meter.................................41
1.The many roles of the auditor 41
The interviewer 41
The auditor 41
The case supervisor 42
The examiner 42
The ethics consultant 43
2.The language of the E-Meter 45
How the E-meter 45
What is a read? 46
”yes” and “no” 47
The instant read 47
The floating needle (F/N) 48
High TA F/N 49
The ARC-break F/N 50
The dirty needle 50
Three buttons to check for charge 50
The false read 51
Completing cycles of action 51
Indication of charge and why 52
3. Preparing the session 53
Clearing words 53
The pre-session 53
The can squeeze 54
Metabolism 55
The session 56
Admin and C/Sing 56
4. Introduction to the Various Techniques 59
4.1 The Prepcheck 61
The procedure 61
Getting the item 62
The end phenomenon 62
The prepcheck combined with Postulate Auditing 63

4.2 The Repair List 65
Origin and purpose 65
The L1C 66
The end phenomenon 66
4.3 The Rudiments 68
“Normal” rudiments 68
The missed withhold and the overt 70
Invalidation and Evaluation 72
Rudiments of Long Duration (LD Ruds) 72
LD ruds 73
Normal ruds 73
Repetitive ruds 74
”False” ruds 74
Reverse ruds 75
Flows 75
4.4 Rehabilitation Procedure 76
The purpose of a rehabilitation 76
Theory and definitions 76
The procedure by key-out 77
Rehab by Key-out: command sequence and patter 78
Rehab by Postulate Auditing 80
Rehab by counting 81
4.5 Dating and Locating (D/L) 83
Theory 83
Procedure 83
4.6 Listing and Nulling (L&N) 86
5.The High and the Low TA 89
Clear read and High TA 89
The rising TA 89
The low TA 90
How to get the TA down 90
Handling the low TA 92
The Bridge below Clear 95
The life repair 95
The drug rundown 96
A note on the grades 97
Postulate auditing why no flows? 99
A Simple Life Repair Program 101
How the C/S thinks 101
The program 102
The Interview 103
Auditing vs. Interviewing 103
How to do an Interview 103
A questionnaire for the Introductory Interview 104
The questionnaire explained 105
Advanced programming 108
Auditing and C/Sing 109
Pc gone clear? 110
The clear check 111
Ethics-Measures 114
From Clear On Up 116
Author’s Postscript 119
Appendix 121
Index............................................................................................... 134

A Comment By The Publisher

After “Scientology - More than a Cult?” had been published, the many positive letters from readers in the English- and German-speaking world made the publisher feel acknowledged for his efforts and encouraged him to proceed with issuing the present volume, “A Handbook for Use”.

Not withstanding the controversial personality of L. Ron Hubbard who for a good forty years formed the target for Time Magazine attacks, and despite the allegations and insinuations of self-styled “sect hunters” against the teachings of the founder of the scientology movement, the publisher considered it unquestionably necessary to make the present materials available to the broad public.

Even some recently published English and American titles working on the principle that Hubbard had had nothing else in mind than to establish a system of manipulation and control, could not change the publisher’s decision, because he, having himself been a member of the Church of Scientology in years past, had already come to his own conclusions, situated somewhere in between these artificially constructed battlefronts.

The present handbook, then, has come to be produced from the background of the publisher’s dealing for over twenty years with friends and foes of this controversial movement. The experiences made in context with VAP’s publishing of the German version of “The Hidden Story of Scientology”, by Omar V. Garrison, were of particular importance, as they clearly demonstrated how far the Church of Scientology had deviated from Hubbard’s intentions. Particularly their noisily asserted claim to having a monopoly on Hubbard’s work appears to be utterly untenable, and unacceptable if looked at in the light of the freedom of science and religion anchored within the democratic constitutions of the western world.

Himself a free thinker, in addressing his readers with a script like this, the publisher has simply the intention to free the philosophy and methodology of Hubbard from their superfluous dead weight and to make them accessible to the general public. This is in the hope that the techniques discussed here are put to an unprejudiced test so that an impartial judgment from the side of ordinary people is made possible, i.e. from those not indoctrinated by the Church of Scientology or its detractors.

References are made throughout this book to other scientological materials, such as Hubbard’s books and tapes or CofS publications. It would be convenient if all the materials needed in order to understand and use the whole of this subject could be included in this book. As this would make it unmanageable and present copyright difficulties, it has been decided to leave the references to the dictionaries and technical publications as stated, hoping that the context is nonetheless understandable and that for those readers keen to study further there is access to these publications. They can be ordered through book shops if one would rather not approach the CofS directly. If there should be any trouble with obtaining books and E-Meters, you are welcome to get in touch with the publisher.

The Procedures.

Personal Integrity

What is true for you is what you have observed yourself
And when you lose that you have lost everything.

What is personal integrity? Personal integrity is knowing what you know
What you know is what you know
And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed. And that is integrity And there is no other integrity.

Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
Unless you have observed it
And it is true according to your observation.
That is all.

(L. Ron Hubbard, in “Ability” No. 125,1961.)


In this second volume on the subject of scientology, we are going to discuss the practical application of the auditing theory which was the content of the first volume, particularly of Part Two. It now goes on with Part Three and Four. Part Three describes the individual procedures “processes”) and their application; Part Four deals with Case Supervision, i.e. the analysis of a case on the basis of a previous interview, the working out of a program containing the procedures explained in Part Three, and the doing of the program.

Auditing is the means of therapy used in scientology. As a word, it means “listening”, which signifies that the activity is based on the use of communication processes. It can be done on many levels and isn’t restricted in its application to professional therapists. Also one doesn’t have to have mastered the whole subject and have read every word Hubbard wrote (or indeed the whole of this book) before one can do useful and beneficial work as an auditor.

Part of this book is concerned with the use of the E-meter as an auditing aid, but valuable results can be attained without it. (Witness the vast popularity of early dianetics in the 50’s, before the E-meter was developed. ) Some processes are designed to be used without the meter, others require it. The following chapters have been arranged accordingly. For those who wish to audit without an E-meter, the chapters on “Simple Techniques”, “Objective Processes” and “Postulate Auditing” are the ones to study. Beginning with the chapter on “Auditing with the E-meter” there is an increasingly professional slant.

Whether you use a meter or do without, all procedures need to be drilled well before you go into a real auditing session. Drilling is an essential part of the auditor’s training. The time-honored rule is “read it - drill it - do it”. One of the proven aspects of scientology practitioner training is that you cannot expect to become an auditor just by reading about it. Your certainty regarding the various procedures, your routine in handling the E-meter and your auditor presence can only be achieved by drilling, drilling, drilling and doing, doing, doing. You need an experienced auditor to train you. You cannot pick it up from a book, be it this one or any other one.
Your auditor presence in particular is the platform the pc’s trust in you rests on. If you were a “technician” only, your pc would soon feel lonely. There are moments when you have to be personally with him and help him through, on a direct thetan-to-thetan ARC line. This cannot be substituted by any “technical procedures” . And it is not simply a matter of training either. Auditor presence is the quality that underlies all real success in many fields, such as education or medicine, for example. It is an expression of genuine caring and ability to grant beingness to the other person. This natural willingness to respect the way others are, and to respond to a need for help, can be enhanced by training in communication skills, although this cannot be a substitute for it. The importance of good auditor presence particularly is that it allows the pc to feel safe and thus to have the confidence to face up to what he couldn’t confront before. Hubbard recognized this importance and was aware that an auditor becomes more effective as he progresses with his own case-handling and becomes Clear himself.

To some extent, though, auditor presence can be acquired and enhanced by means of a number of drills called the “Training Routines” or “TRs”. They deal with the fundamental elements of communication. For this reason the first chapter is devoted to them. No matter what you do in auditing or in life, your TRs “have to be in” . This means as much as “your presence must be unshakable” - be it as an auditor or as a private person.

As in Volume 1, all words in bold print are technical terms and can be looked up in the Technical Dictionary.

TheTraining Routines (TRs):
Basic Elements Of

The training routines or TRs are called this, because they ought to be drilled as a matter of routine. They are the back bone of any kind of auditor training. They are all done the same way: a student, a coach; the drill is done with the coach correcting the student as needed, until the student has passed the drill; then their roles reverse.

In the following text you will find that the actual drills are described rather briefly, whereas their application to auditing is discussed more broadly. It would be beyond the scope of this book to elaborate the full drilling instructions. However, they can be found in a compilation of Hubbard texts, which despite its rather frightful name, is very useful: “The Volunteer Minister’s Handbook” [17]. (The name stems from a time when the CofS was very eagerly proclaiming its “religious image”.)

The TRs are the most important tool the auditor has. Good TRs combined with keeping the Auditor’s Code are the fundamentals on which the tech rests. Any amount of technical processes would be ineffective if used by an auditor who commits Code breaks - such as getting angry at the pc or giving comments and opinions on the pc’s statements - and who doesn’t have proper command of the communication cycle . (See “Dangerous Auditor” in the Tech Dict.)

TR-0: (Confronting)The actual drill: Student and coach sit opposite each other on two chairs and confront each other first with closed eyes and then with their eyes open. When they feel comfortably here and now with their eyes closed, without being involved in thoughts or bothered by masses and pressures, they open their eyes; each when he is finished for himself. Then they continue with their eyes open. The emphasis of the drill is on attention and affinity alone. It is passed when they can give each other flawless attention on the level of friendly interest, for at least two hours.

Then the newly acquired poise of calmly being able to face up to whatever it may be, is put to a test. The two partners divide up in coach and student, and the coach tries verbally and nonverbally to tease the student and make fun of him. This is called “bullbaiting”. When he does not manage to throw the student and when the student succeeds in keeping up his calm serenity, the drill is passed.

The coach corrects the student concerning the training target by saying “flunk!” anytime the student goes off the exact form, and carefully explaining to the student what he, the coach, has objectively observed. Then the coach goes through the same situation once again, so often till the student can take the hurdle easily. Only then will the coach present a new situation or increase the gradient of difficulty. He makes sure that the correct training gradient is kept and that there is never more than one button pushed. A “button” is an item stored in the reactive bank. When it gets “pushed” (restimulated) by the words, phrases or gestures of the coach, the student will react with discomfort, embarrassment, upset or uncontrollable laughter. A button is pushed repeatedly until it is flat. i.e. until the student has ceased reacting to it. Only then does the coach look for a new one. (As this training technique is used in all TRs, it will not be explained again.)

The significance of the drill: With his TR-0 the auditor puts a safe mental space there. He is just there, he isn’t doing anything but being there for and with the pc. He adds no unnecessary comments and enturbulations. He is expected not to have a case. This means that he puts a nothingness there, whereas the pc puts a big somethingness there: his case . This way the auditor forms a vacuum and the pc a high pressure area. Charge can now flow from the pc to the auditor. Good TR-0 has the effect that the pc just can’t help talking about his case. It’s being sucked out of him, as it were. - A bad auditor who can’t confront bank will act as a suppressor to the pc’s origination’s. The pc will not wish to say very much to him.

TR-1: (Controlled Outflow)The actual drill: Position as above. The student chooses a phrase or sentence in direct speech from a book, makes it his own and speaks it clearly and loudly enough across to the other, as if it had just occurred to him. He must be very natural in doing so.

The coach corrects him in the way described in TR-0 as criteria for his judgment he uses the elements of the communication formula, the ARC-triangle and the tone scale . (As these criteria are used as a means of training in all auditor drills, not only the TRs, there is no need to keep re-stating them.)

The significance of the drill: TR-1 is the auditor’s mental and verbal reach into the pc’s bank. He is interested, he is curious (3.5 on the tonescale). He wants to get something done about it. He restimulates the pc by the auditing command, he invites him to look into the bank and thereby establishes the auditing comm cycle. A bad auditor will under-restimulate the pc, not reach him, bore him, and get nothing done.

TR-2: (Acknowledgement of an Inflow) The actual drill: Position and procedure as above, but with reversed roles. The coach speaks the sentences taken from the book across to the student who has to acknowledge them loudly, clearly, without any stuttering or communication lags, and in a sensible way.

The significance of the drill: TR-2 validates the pc for having found an answer to the auditor’s question. He has done what the auditor commanded, he has looked and searched and it wasn’t easy at all and now he has come up with an answer: he wants this validated.

The auditor’s TR-2 acknowledges the pc’s efforts and results. This is not in order to be nice, this is no hand-patting. The auditor has commanded the pc to enter the unknown jungle of his bank and come out with a certain thing which the pc doesn’t quite know what it is going to be. So the pc goes into the jungle and comes out with something and doesn’t know yet if it is the right thing. The auditor looks at what the pc found, estimates its value by meter reaction and pc indicators, sends him back when it isn’t good enough or validates him when it indeed is the real thing.
A full acknowledgement is given when the auditor has fully understood the pc, and not before. It’s a sign of understanding and therefore composed of Communication and Reality and Affinity, in this sequence. The auditor has received the pc’s Communication. He acknowledges the Reality of the pc in a way that makes the pc confident that the auditor did get it. Only then will the pc feel no further need to talk about the subject. The auditor as well must acknowledge the pc on the right tone level (Affinity): a half-tone above the pc’s tone. Then, and only then, will the pc feel understood . When the auditor is over-serious (“wooden TRs”) or lower toned than the pc, the pc will never have a release as he won’t come uptone enough to get out of the bank. The auditor therefore takes up two positions on the tone scale simultaneously: that of interest (3.5) which he never leaves, and that one half tone above that of the pc. This is not to say that the auditor is pretending no, he just naturally goes along with the pc.

The auditor “listens and computes” [2]. He does not just listen, take anything the pc may say, and nod his head. He computes. He thinks. It is entirely up to his judgment how far he drives the pc into the bank, what he has him search for and for how long it is up to his estimation whether what the pc found is within the context of the specific auditing command - fitting or not. He uses his own good sense. He most certainly does not break the Auditor’s Code [1] by invalidating the pc or making evaluative comments. And yet he computes, by giving his acknowledgement at the right point and for the right thing. His TR-2 controls the communication cycle - and it makes the pc feel more certain.

The pc’s uncertainty regarding the three universes is the only reason why he wants auditing. He needs the auditor’s acknowledgement in order to build up the certainty he does not have naturally. Good TR-2 encourages the pc to be fully certain; eventually he will create his own certainty independent of the auditor or anyone. TR-2 is the vital factor in a session. Any session lives off it, no matter what method is being used.

TR-3: (Persistence)The actual drill: The student asks the coach a simple question which can only be answered in a simple way, i.e. by “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t know”. Traditionally the innocuous questions “Do fish swim?” and “Do birds fly?” are used. When the coach answers the question, the student acknowledges with a “thank you”. When he does not answer it, the student leads back to the question with a “I repeat the question” or a similar phrase, and repeats the question verbatim in a friendly way as if it had never occurred before. This happens anytime the coach does not answer. The coach tries with unexpected comments, similar to TR-0 bullbaited, to throw the student off. The drill is passed when the student keeps up his persistence and gets an answer under all circumstances.

The significance of the drill: This TR trains the auditor to persist in asking his question until the pc comes up with the right answer, not a contrived one. The right answer is accompanied by masses blowing off . A wrong answer is a mere “significance” [2] and has no mass connected to it. In this case the auditor sends the pc back into the jungle to look some more. He does his TR-3 subtly and tactfully and imperceptibly and keeps the question going till he has the answer. And then - bang - here comes his TR-2 to end the cycle.

TR-4: (Handling Misemotions and Unwillingness) The actual drill looks from the outside like TR-3. There is a difference, though, in that the coach does not, as in TR-3, give nonsensical comments directed strictly at the student. but refers to himself, to his thoughts, misemotions, physical sensations and pains. He acts as if he couldn’t answer the question even if he wanted to, because he feels so bad. This drill requires a lot of authenticity from the coach. Much as he is only pretending, he must be very true to himself in order to stay realistic. In such a situation the student cannot just work with persistence as that would make the situation worse. He must be understanding, listen to the other, acknowledge him in his troubles and then gently and tactfully lead back to the question. Understanding, acknowledging, leading back to the question; that is the recipe for handling misemotion and unwillingness. The coach can increase the training gradient by positioning his dramatization further and further down on the tonescale. The TR-4 of the student is challenged the more, the “worse” the coach feels and the more strongly and thoroughly he acts the particular mood out.

The significance of the drill: It is the objective of TR-4 to reestablish the pc’s willingness to cooperate with the auditor and continue with the process .TR-4 is the auditor’s tool to help build up the pc’s confront when he’s too scared of the bank to carry on. It doesn’t matter how the auditor does it and how long it takes, as long as the pc is back in session. TR-4 is the most subtle of all TR’s as it entirely lives off the ARC of the auditor and nothing else.

Going back for a moment to the importance of “auditor presence”: It is most obvious in TR-4, where the auditor has to show that he has really understood the pc, and in doing so, he, the auditor, is at his most visible. If he is not genuinely interested, his acknowledgment will stand out as false or inadequate, with the result that the pc will cease to feel safe, will lose trust, and the auditing session will fail to some degree. It is no surprise that TR-4 is the most difficult for some to learn to do really well. The auditor’s interest in the pc is as important as the pc’s interest in his bank.

TRs 5-9: (Developing and Upholding Intention) TRs 5-9 teach the auditor to have just the right amount of intention to get the job done; they teach him session control. Without a willingness to control, the auditor’s TRs 1-4 will collapse as soon as the going gets rough in session. Or, should he assume too much control, the pc will feel overwhelmed.

If you would wish to develop a professional standard of skill as an auditor, you would be well advised to spend considerable time on these basic drills, and that may amount to as much as three to six weeks, ten hours a day - such is the value and importance of the TRs. (This is true for solo-auditors too. Their success in session is equally dependent on their TRs. )

Auditor And Pc- An Introduction


Having already covered the theoretical aspects of auditing in Part One and Two of the first volume, a more practical description of it follows now: The auditor asks the pc a set of questions or directs him to examine some previously unviewed aspect of himself or his past. This is continued until the pc has gained some certainty on the underlying cause of his troubles, realizing “it is a . . .”. He has done what is called an itsa. He has had a cognition. When you make the mistake of carrying on beyond this point, you get an overrun. But never mind, it can be rehabilitated later. (See the appropriate section in this book.)

To the extent that the process, i.e. the set of questions, is specifically relevant to the pc (and this is carefully determined first), the achievement of his cognition will be accompanied by relief, brightening up, and various other “very good indicators” (VGIs), that together amount to the End Phenomena (EP), of the process.


Further on in this text we will describe the various tasks the auditor has to fulfill, in detail. (See “The Many Roles Of The Auditor”.) At this point only the most fundamental needs stating: The auditor has his auditing commands and his TRs. He does no more than putting the pc in session (TR-0), giving the auditing command (TR-1), acknowledging the pc’s answer (TR-2), and getting the pc back to the auditing command when he wanders off (TR-3, TR-4). Further than that, the auditor does not talk. His behavior is wholly determined by the Auditor’s Code [1]. There is nothing ritualistic or artificial about this code. It provides a frame of reference for the auditor’s behavior which he is obliged to adhere to, as otherwise the session would come to a bad end. When it is violated, wins and results cannot be guaranteed. It is a strictly functional code, with the exception of some “political” points (24-28) which have no bearing on the actual session.

There is one aspect of the pc-auditor interrelation expressed in point 16 of the Auditor’s Code, which deserves mentioning in particular: “I promise to maintain Communication with the preclear (. . .)”. This does not only refer to the actual session itself. Because out of session, the PC usually has a lot of questions about the auditing, about the session, about the tech, about the E-meter. Of course, you should never allow the pc to “talk case” out of session as it would only lead to over-restimulation. But apart from that, he will want to know what you are doing technically. Answer all his questions. Sometimes LRH-references help, but usually it’s you who has to do the explaining. There is nothing worse than a tight-lipped auditor, who for fear of invalidating the pc or evaluating for him (which would be a violation of the code, indeed), turns the whole why and wherefore of the session into a huge secret. He doesn’t even do himself a favor that way, because he keeps the pc stupid. How on Earth is he going to audit a pc who is down on his knees with awe of the auditor, admiration of the session and respect for the authority of L. Ron Hubbard, but does not understand a thing of what’s happening to him? The whole session will become a ritual, a ceremony, where the pc says what he thinks the auditor may want to hear at this or that point of the procedure. So please answer all questions. When you answer them technically, as a general matter, and not with respect to the pc’s own case, there will be no invalidation or evaluation, and you will not introvert him at all. Quite the contrary: he will be a better team partner, because by giving him some knowledge, you have increased his KRC-level. And a good team partner makes work ever so easy.

In the CofS, one is warned against giving “verbal tech”, which is sensible if it prevents misrepresentation of the concepts. However, if you understand these ideas well enough to work with them as an auditor, you surely can explain them adequately to your pc, and can recognize when you need to refer to LRH materials. (See “Code of a Scientologist, points 2,14,17 in [1].)


In the actual session, the auditing comm cycle [2] goes on between auditor and pc. Its quality and smoothness is wholly determined by the auditor’s TRs. In slightly abbreviated form, it runs like this: 1. Is the pc ready to receive the command? 2. The auditor gives his command. 3. The pc looks to his bank for an answer. 4. The pc receives an answer from the bank. 5. The pc gives this answer to the auditor. 6. The auditor acknowledges the pc. 7. He makes sure the acknowledgment has been received by the pc. Now the next cycle starts with 1. again.


Although it may sound all too obvious, the following must be stated at some point, so here it is: The pc must say out loud and in detail what comes to his mind .

When he only thinks it, or says “yes” as an answer to the auditing command, he will not get rid of any charge. Quite the contrary: he will increase it! Each thing that comes to his mind with reference to the auditing question and stays un-communicated, will blow up the tension. “Have you ever had an operation?” Pc goes pale and says: “Yes, but I can’t tell you about it, it was too terrible.” Now, when the auditor goes on to the next question, what help would that be to the pc? A button has been restimulated, and it must be cleaned before you go on. The pc must recreate the whole incident in his mind (lst universe), and as he goes along doing so, he must create it for real (3rd universe). too, by describing all the sordid details to the auditor. Only then can an as-isness occur. The mental creation, the mental image picture of the incident must be a perfect duplicate of the actual incident, complete with time, place, form, event and exact postulate and the description the pc gives to the auditor must be a perfect duplicate of what he sees in his mind, and only then will they all discharge into each other and it goes poof! and nothing is left.

Axiom 12. “The primary condition of any universe is that two spaces, energies, or objects must not occupy the same space. When this condition is violated (perfect duplicate) the apparency of any universe or any part thereof is nulled.”

The pc must create the mass of the incident, the emotional energy, the pain, the physical sensation, he must sweat and pant and weep in session only then has he got any value out of it. When he merely says: “Well, I know what happened, it was like so-and-so and bla-di-bla, and that reminds me that I had a similar cognition only the other week as I was picking some daffodils”, he is indulging in significance’s. That is not going to get him anywhere. Confronting significance’s leads to nothing but theta cosmetics. Confronting masses - that’s the hard part. And it’s up to the auditor to get the pc there. If he could do it alone, he wouldn’t need an auditor.


The pc puts a lot of trust in his auditor. Therefore the auditor has to behave accordingly. ‘A pc tends to be able to confront to the degree that he or she feels safe. (. . .) If the auditors TRs are rough and his manner uncertain or challenging, evaluative or invalidative, the pcs confront is reduced to zero or worse. This comes from a very early set of laws (. . .):
Auditor plus pc is greater than the bank, Auditor plus bank is greater than the pc, Pc minus auditor is less than the bank.
No “bedside manner” is required or sympathetic expression. It’s just that an auditor who knows his procedures and has good TRs inspires more confidence.” (From HCOB 30 April 1969, “Auditor Trust” .)


Who should you accept as your pc? -This is entirely up to the type of work you want to do as an auditor. You may wish to help suicide cases, druggies and others who really got under the wheels. That’s fine, you may do so of course. Yet Hubbard’s motto is “to make the able more able”. You will save yourself a lot of trouble when you stick to his words. Start with the easy ones, keep the rough cases till later. And it’s a sane viewpoint on the third dynamic, too: able people are likely to create more positive change with broader influence on society than unable ones. Once scientology is as widely accepted as medicine or psychology and subsidized by the government and insurance companies, auditors will be able to afford looking after drug addicts, criminals, and the socially or mentally handicapped, in the institutions already set up for this purpose.

But no matter whom you may wish to accept: be very sure he sincerely desires to get better, and is willing to do something about it! He must be in “need of change”, which is -4 on the Scale of Awareness Characteristics [1]. (This scale reaches from -34, where the being considers himself to be in a state of unexistence, to +21, where he realizes himself to be the sole source of his success and failure in life.)


Lastly, a word should be said on the subject of exchange. It is customary that the auditor gets paid by the pc. He gets paid by the hour. He does not get paid by the final result. It is important that one understands the significance of this. What does the auditor do? He gives his time and his know-how to assist the pc in solving his problems. The actual solving, however, is done by the pc! The auditor supervises the pc’s attempts to free himself and suggests new and better ways of doing it, by selecting the right auditing process. The pc does the work. And the pc agrees with the auditor regarding the strategies the auditor has chosen.

Speaking in comparison, it is like the pc wished to be taken to the other shore and needed a ferryman. The ferryman can guarantee in principal that the destination will be reached, but he cannot guarantee that the pc is going to stand it financially and physically. Because it is the pc who is doing the rowing. Not the ferryman! He gets paid for his knowledge being used. And the longer it takes, the more expensive it is going to be. (This is actually being handled in the same way in the whole field of therapy, not only in scientology.)

So there is a contract: the auditor gives the pc something the pc considers valuable, and the pc pays the auditor according to the fee set. When the pc permits himself to get audited without feeling that it is valuable, and still pays the auditor for it, he is himself to blame.

This comes down to two simple business guidelines, one for the pc, the other for the auditor: The pc should be sincere with himself. He should discontinue the auditing when he gets the feeling that it does not do anything for him. He should not go on, hoping it was going to get better, and then complain that he was cheated. What he does with his money is his own responsibility. The auditor, on the other hand, should not promise what he cannot keep. He should promise results regarding spiritual abilities, yes, such as going Clear. When he feels competent enough, he may even say to the pc: “Your fear of spiders - well, auditing can handle that!” Because it does. So he may promise a result concerning a specific trouble the pc has, certainly, but he should never say how long it will take ! All sorts of things may turn up in the attempt to handle this one particular thing, and so it may take five times longer than expected.

And again: auditing serves to increase the spiritual awareness of a person, his tone level, and his ability to handle his life causatively. It does not exclusively serve to undo someone’s fear of spiders. It has a much broader scope than that. It does often achieve miracles, no doubt, but they are not necessarily made to order. “I promise not to advocate Scientology only to cure illness or only to treat the insane, knowing well it was intended for spiritual gain. “ (Auditor’s Code, point 25 . )

The Auditor’s Tools:
A)Simple Techniques

The simple techniques covered in this section may well serve as “introductory auditing”. This is recommended in some cases, because it seems more “natural” to some people than metered auditing. To a beginning pc a controlled cycle of action from “This is the session” to “End of session”, a tightly held communication line, a specific auditing command meant to be answered, are enough of a novelty to make him wonder. Adding E-meter and cans as well may just be too much to take, at the start.

For the beginning auditor, introductory auditing provides an easy gradient to make him feel at home with session procedure, pc reactions, keeping session control, etc.


Assists serve as a mental first aid when the pc is in a state of shock and pain right after the accident happened (Contact Assist), as a relief from confusion (Locational Assist) or psychosomatic tension (Touch Assist). They reduce the unconsciousness produced by the shock of the accident, and they help to undo counter-postulates made during it.

For children they work fabulously well. Instead of pitying the child, or scolding him for his “stupidity”, the caring parent would do an assist, make the child conscious of what has happened, make him confront the accident and the pain - and miraculously the shock will disappear. It is a great way of helping children to be more responsible for their actions and keeping them from building up “Service Facsimiles” in the attempt to control adults by means of tantrums and tearful faces. (Service Facsimiles were explained in Volume 1, Part Two.)

Assists require no prior auditor experience. Good TRs are very useful, though, as a well-controlled auditing communication cycle is of supreme importance: command - execution - acknowledgment (“thank you”) - next command - etc., until the end phenomenon sets in.

In a Contact Assist the person is made to touch the exact spot on the object he has hit, using the exact body part with which he hit the object. For example, you have banged your head on the door: touch your head back in the same place. Ideally the whole body motion and position should be exactly duplicated. It is done many times. At first the shock and pain will become worse, then the pc feels relief. Whether this should be done before or after medical first aid, depends on the situation. There is no set command. What counts is the exact duplication of the harmful incident by acting it out precisely as it was, or, in the case of precluding a painful event such as a smallpox injection would be for a little child, playing it through beforehand as it is going to happen.

In a Locational Assist the pc is made to touch things or to look at things until his confusion goes and he is back in touch with his environment. This is done on people who are under the influence of shock, alcohol or drugs. - Commands: “Look at the (object)!” or: “Touch the (object)!” - Pc does it. - “Thank you!” This one repeats till the pc looks and feels better.

In a Touch Assist the tips of the pc’s toes and fingers are touched in a left-right symmetrical sequence. (Left thumb - right thumb - left forefinger - right forefinger - etc.) In the same way, going upwards, one touches points alongside his spine (the width of one hand away on either side) and around the crown of his head. Then one works one’s way down along the same route and starts all over again. Usually one does it about a dozen times before any betterment can be expected. The pc keeps his eyes closed all the while.

A Touch Assist must be done for a long time and for some consecutive days, to have a good and lasting result. It relieves chronic or acute somatics, colds, headaches, etc. It can have quite startling results not necessarily to be expected from such a simple procedure. - Commands: “Feel my finger!” - Pc: “Hm” . _ “Thank you!” - And so on. (See the “Volunteer Minister’s Handbook” [17] .)


Book One auditing is the application of the techniques presented in the first of Hubbard’s books, “Dianetics, Modern Science of Mental Health”. This approach to the case is excellent for the person who arrives at your door in a state of great need or distress, as it goes right down to the source of his troubles without any need of prior instruction. It is a technique all by itself. It demands a special training course and appropriate experience in order to be done well. Quite in contrast to the rumors about it, Book One auditing is not easy. Certainly, one can be fairly sure to cause an impressive effect on someone by hitting on prenatal incidents or past lives even in his first session. Or by undoing a chronic disability or a psychosomatic illness. In that sense it is a “simple technique”, can be used as such, and is rightfully mentioned as part of this particular chapter. But that does not mean by far that one would be handling the case as a whole! That is just interesting, exciting, “oh wow!”, etc. Doing something for the pc consistently by means of raw Dianetics-book auditing, handling his case bit by bit, taking him up to Clear, is immensely difficult. When you can do it, you have earned yourself the master’s degree. If done well, it’s the cream of all auditing . Why? Because you use no meter to tell you where the charge is and which way to go. You only rely on your observation and your judgment. Why did Hubbard invent all the other techniques? Because Book One is so dreadfully complex. Everything else is comparatively straightforward. Everything else added up and used right by instinct and intuition with no meter, would amount to what “Dianetics” demands of the auditor.

This is not to discourage anyone it is just to explain why Book One auditing cannot be covered here . Anyone wishing to work with this technique is referred to DMSMH, Science of Survival and the very helpful bulletin “Standard Procedure” in Tech Vol.I, p.15.


This type of auditing is extremely simple, good fun and surprisingly effective. It takes its name from a book called “Self Analysis” (published 1951) which provides a number of lists containing some 30 to 60 auditing questions each. Each question asks the pc to recall a certain incident, some of them pleasurable, some lightly unpleasant.

Self Analysis processes may appear too simple to be bothered with. They are not . They build up recall and confront ability and teach the pc to create a timetrack by finding earlier similar incidents. Running Self Analysis Lists usually is a very rewarding experience for both the auditor and the pc . This is particularly true for List 1, Pleasure Moments. To give an example of the command sequence and a few items: “Recall a time when you were happy.” Pc does so and tells the auditor briefly about it. Then: “Recall an earlier time when you were happy.” Pc does so. Then: “Recall the earliest time you can when you were happy.” Pc does so . This would complete one command cycle . The same sequence is used for the other items on the list, such as “when you finished constructing something”, “when life was cheerful”, when you ate something good”, “when you were kissed by someone you liked”, and further questions.

Additionally, one asks the pc for specific sense perceptions such as sight, sound, color and motion. On each command cycle one particular perception is used, on the next command cycle another one, and so on.


“Admin”, derived from the word “administration”, simply means “the paperwork connected with a session”.

The session with simple techniques has the same form that is being used generally: 1.”This is the session!” 2.The process is run to a win or to an EP. 3.”End of session!”. In contrast to sessions with the E-meter, the auditor is not expected to write during the session. He writes his summary session report afterwards or in a break. It contains for each process when it was started and when it was ended, indicators of the pc during the process, and his origination’s and cognition’s. On a separate sheet which is stapled on top of the summary report, you add your comments and your suggestions for the next session, usually no more than “carry on with the process to EP”, or: “next process” - depending on how far you got with the pc. This is all the admin you need to do. (In metered auditing there is more of it.)


Once the new pc has had a few sessions and a few wins he will feel at home with this new procedure of auditing. He should now do a TRs-course to increase his confront. As well he should clear some basic technical and philosophical concepts as covered in Part Two of the previous volume. This balance of auditing and training will increase his knowledge, responsibility and control (KRC) regarding the handling of his case. The pc must understand that he has not come to a party of “beautiful people” who have nothing better to do than patting his hands, but to a place where he can learn to help himself . “Be cause ! “ is the motto.

The Auditor’s Tools:
B) Objective Processes


Auditing processes which make the pc look at his timetrack and his mental image pictures, are called subjective processes. In contrast to that, when he is running objective processes, the pc is asked to look at or do something with the actual objects in his environment . The command to look at or do something with the object in question is not given only once but repeatedly. It’s a repetitive process. This way, restimulation occurs.

An example: pc and auditor sit on two chairs opposite each other with the auditor’s knees closing the pc’s knees in. Their hands rest on their (own) thighs. The auditor says: “Give me that hand” . Pc gives the auditor his right hand. The auditor says “Thank you” and uses his left hand to put the pc’s right hand gently back on his thigh and repeats the whole cycle. The commands are given very fast and at a fairly even speed. This is run for some hours. (This process is called “CCH 1”.)The pc will display all sorts of mechanisms and mental circuits. He will go down the tonescale and up again, he may go unconscious (deep sleep) and wake up again, until finally the EP occurs. It is simply: no further restimulation possible. The pc does the process with enthusiasm and has no attention on time at all. He could continue it for hours without any effort.

Another example of an objective process is Opening Procedure by Duplication. It goes like this: Pc and auditor walk up and down between two tables or chairs on one of them there is a book, on the other a bottle. Commands: “Look at that book!” - pc looks - “Thank you ! “ - “Walk over to it ! “ - they walk over - “Thank you!” - “Pick it up!” - pc does - “Thank you!” “What’s it’s color?”/”What’s it’s temperature?”/”What’s it’s weight?” - pc answers each time as truthfully as he can and auditor acknowledges each time with a “Thank you!” - “Put it down in exactly the same place!” - “Thank you!” - “Look at that bottle!” - etc. Again, this is done for hours. The pc will try to stay in present time but will invariably doze off. The most marvelous phenomena will occur until the pc- after ten, thirty or fifty hours, spread out over a number of sessions - has run out all disagreements with monotonous and nonsensical activities and can do it as brightly as the morning sun without any attention on a time limit at all. He will feel that there won’t be anything to irritate him further in doing this particular activity, that there won’t be anything left in his bank which might get stirred up to distract him. Now he is “through” the process. -Transferring this result to life, one would expect that the pc, regarding his various activities, does not get sidetracked by his bank any longer.

Apart from the few processes mentioned here as examples, there are quite a lot more. One could put them in three categories:

First: Processes based on the principle of Reach and Withdraw. They follow the simple pattern: “Touch the (object) ! “ - “Thank you!” - “Let go of the (object)!” - “Thank you!” - Etc. (As well, depending on circumstances: “Look at the (object)!” “Thank you!” - “Look away!” - “Thank you!” - Etc.) Used with reference to objects, places or people the pc has trouble confronting (as manifested by shyness, repulsion, panic, etc.), they will turn on his symptoms quite vehemently to start with. Later the reaction will subside and vanish, to be replaced by positive realizations.

Second: Processes which “crack” the case, such as the ones mentioned, i.e. CCH 1 and Opening Procedure By Duplication.

Third: Processes serving to increase one’s range of ability and awareness. They are in actual fact to be classed as learning processes. They are run in the repetitive style as well, but in contrast to the previous category, in a very considerate and observant manner. (There will be some examples of them in the course of the text.)

In auditing objectives you will see the pc going foggy, having misemotions, sensations and somatics. How come objectives can restimulate bank? After all, the reactive mind consists of locks, secondaries, engrams, of masses and significance’s (postulates) - how can you get it restimulated by having the pc repeatedly touch that wall, let go of that wall, touch that wall, let go of that wall; over and over and over again? (This would be an example of a Reach and withdraw process first category above.)

It is not necessarily the case that the object used in the process (i.e. the wall, the auditor’s hand, the book, the bottle) is acting as a restimulator. The incidents restimulated may not contain any of these things. So how come there can be a key-in? The secret lies in the repetitiveness of the action. It’s the repetitiveness itself which causes the restimulation!

With objectives you are addressing circuits. All engrams contain circuits. That’s because all engrams contain 2nd postulates: either someone said something and the pc picked it up and agreed to it, or - even if nobody said anything in the whole incident - he made a succumb-postulate himself. These postulates go unconsciously round and round “in the pc’s head” like a circuit, and determine his behavior.
The constant repetition of the auditing command in an objective process restimulates these circuits. The auditor acts exactly as the circuit does: he keeps repeating the same command. (As these mental circuits keep going continually, they are also called automaticities.) All 2nd postulates follow the pattern of: “I don’t want to do it any more; I won’t do it any more; I can’t do it any more. ”This is exactly what is being restimulated by the continuously repeated auditing command - plus the interconnected engrams and GPMs with all their misemotions and pains.

Now that we know how restimulation occurs (by repetition) and what is being restimulated (2nd postulates), we may ask what is the difference compared to subjective processes. There as well you have the repetitive style there as well you are dealing with postulates. So what is special about the objectives? It is that they approach the case from the angle of control. Each thetan loves to be in control; he likes to be at cause over his outflow of particles, i.e. over his communication. To him, outflow is nobler than inflow.

Now, when he encounters a stop, when an intention is stronger than his and an obstacle bigger than him, when his body gets smashed - there he is being controlled, there he must permit the inflow despite his attempts to control it. Therefore he musters all his strength in order to control the overwhelming power, puts energies, masses and postulates against it. But, when he does not undo these energies, masses and postulates after the danger has passed, they remain in the form of a ridge, of a circuit . With the result that the circuit starts controlling the thetan himself firstly, because it is unconscious, and secondly, restimulatable. The situation of then is “forever now” - as soon as it is restimulated. The thetan reacts to what he himself has created. He controls compulsively.

By giving the same command repetitively the auditor takes control of the pc’s actions and at the same time asks him to take over and run his own control. This of course gets the pc in conflict with his circuits. By trying to take control himself, the pc restimulates all the circuits to which he has delegated his control. As a result, the circuits start playing up and in turn control him. It’s the old principle of getting the thetan to consciously do what he is already doing reactively - which invariably leads to introversion. (See also “Mimicry”, Tech Dict.) So the processes used are convenient ways to address this tendency, with only general significance in the choice of subjects. One can certainly devise processes using pc-specific objects in certain cases. Reach-and Withdraw processes are very adaptable in this respect.


To get another angle on this, consider hypnotism. That suggestible people are manipulated is the basis of the main criticism of scientology, so this might be an opportunity to clarify this point. How does hypnosis work? The subject, at the insistence of the hypnotist, enters an unquestioning state of mind and gives over control to him, at a deep or shallow level. He will behave as commanded. Even afterwards, awakened, he will still execute “post-hypnotic commands”, i.e. commands given during the trance to be executed after it is over. The state of mind where these commands persist, unsuspected and unviewed, is exactly what you would call “bank” in scientology. If force or pain. especially when sufficient to cause heavy unconsciousness - as in an engram or a GPM - prevent review and discharge of the commands, then they will continue to operate.

In hypnotherapy the suggestions of the hypnotist are designed to override the negative succumb-postulates with positive ones, which may happen to appear similar to the original 1st postulates. This can of course be somewhat effective, though without removing the underlying 2nd postulates the results are unlikely to be lasting. (The same could be said in criticism of what is called “positive thinking”.)

Life can be hypnotic. Life situations can force the person to abandon his own conscious control and agree with the commands of the situation, the environment, other people or entities. He changes his state of mind, against his will, and even it is only for an instant it can afterwards act back on him, just like the post-hypnotic suggestion.

An individual who has been heavily oppressed by life - and undoubtedly scientology does attract such people - is likely to be easily hypnotized, as he may be in an almost continuous light trance anyway, imposed on him by external forces. So can be readily manipulated or taken advantage of. Unfortunately such has happened in the CofS, though not necessarily from evil-intentionedness - which is the accusation. It is simply a shared group dramatization which people in all walks of life are susceptible to. Objective processes in the manner described here, undo all these instants, heavy or light, without the need to identify specific incidents. They run them out by restimulating the outside control factor which the pc is identified with. The consequence is like an awakening and the pc becomes far less hypnotizable by life.


The introversion mentioned may go to the extreme of the pc being shaken by a fit of grief and tears, an anger tantrum, or by his losing consciousness partially or fully. Naturally, the auditor doesn’t allow his pc to get cowed back into agreement with his circuits but keeps giving the command - even to the point of bypassing the thetan and moving his body around for him. Supported by the auditor, the pc starts fighting his circuits. They turn on heavier than usual and either gradually or suddenly release all of their remaining components: unconsciousness, pain, misemotion - the sort of stuff one would expect to be contained in an engram. The pc dramatizes them, usually without getting any pictures. Suddenly it goes wham! - and a whole big chunk of mass just blows away.

Do adjust your speed to that of the pc whilst he is dramatizing. Don’t continue mechanically like a robot! You would either slow him down or urge him on. Certainly, in order to get him into a dramatization, you must work evenly and steadily. But once he is in something, care and attentiveness must be applied. This is your non-verbal way to stay in communication with the pc and keep the ARC up. And another thing: let him talk when he wants to talk! Not only when he has a final realization, but as well when he sees pictures or re-lives incidents of the past. This does not occur all too often with objective processes as the bank shows itself in the form of masses only. But when it happens: let him finish talking, acknowledge him, carry on. Do not cut him short - but do not switch over to subjective auditing either, trying to continue the objective process as a recall process. What’s right here, is entirely a matter of tact and feeling. Very subtle. Technically speaking: it’s your TR-4 which will save the situation.

As you go along with your process, you will observe that the effects it produces grow less and less. To start with, there will be heavy masses, later misemotions, finally “weird thoughts” which of course are 2nd postulates. The process is “running flat”.

And then the EP will occur: the pc beams and thinks it is perfectly all right to continue the process forever.

So what has happened here? -The pc who has initially resisted the inflowing control and communication from the auditor and from his GPMs, can now tolerate them and permit them to “pass through him” . Instead of fighting them, he can have them. His Havingness has come up in both senses of the definition: as “ARC with a something-ness”, i.e. the environment which he now perceives with greater clarity and friendliness than ever before; and as “ARC with a nothing-ness”, i.e. the absence of circuits in the bank. He can have it that there is nothing where just before there still was something, and he does not feel insecure because of it. The bank - at least the section restimulated here - has no more power over him; his environment cannot find any more “buttons” on him to push.

This development from control via communication to Havingness has lent its name to a number of objective processes: they are called CCHs, from Control-Communication-Havingness. CCH 1, the process mentioned, is usually done in combination with CCH 2, 3 and 4. Here is the full procedure of CCH 1-4:

CCH 1: As described. Run it to a change (pc keys something in) and continue until the pc is back up to normal or better. When it seems to be flat from the start (no apparent change), do run it for about half an hour to ascertain that there really is no change. (It may go flat at any point on the tone scale. When it goes flat below 3 .0, it is not the EP but just a momentary flat point . )Then go to CCH 2.

Experience shows that one should run CCH 1 at a given speed with a definite and unchanging rhythm in order to cause a restimulation, and then keep this speed until the restimulation ceases. Change of speed seems to play a role. The pc may not be affected at all when you do it fast, then you change to slow, and within seconds he slumbers away. Or vice versa. Therefore make sure to change your tempo occasionally, whenever things seem to be flat and uneventful. But don’t get jumpy! Run each tempo for at least 10 minutes before you change.

CCH 2: Auditor and pc walk up and down between two opposing walls in a room. Commands: “Look at that wall!” - “Thank you!” -Walk over to that wall!” - “Thank you!” - “Touch that wall!” - “Thank you!” - “Turn around!” - “Thank you!” “Look at that wall!” -And so on, from the begining. The theory regarding the mechanism of restimulation for CCH 2 is the same as for CCH 1. Both are control processes of the category two mentioned above. CCH 2 is lighter on the pc as it allows him more choices than CCH 1. Run it to a change and through it if there is no change, run it for at least 20 minutes just to make sure . Then go to CCH 3.

CCH 3: Pc and auditor sit on two chairs opposite each other, like in CCH 1. The auditor holds out his hands shoulder-high, palms out to the pc; the pc does the same; their palms touch midway between them. Commands: “I am going to do a motion with my right hand. You follow it. Then I’ll do the same motion with my left hand; this time you contribute to the motion, or even lead it. This depends on how well you duplicated the first motion on the right hand side.” -The auditor does a motion with his right hand, then with his left hand. The pc’s palms stay on his palms all the while . Nothing is being said. Then he asks: “Did you follow the motion on the one side? Did you contribute to it on the other side?” - Depending on the pc’s answer he has to determine whether he should repeat the same motion, make a simpler one or a more difficult one.

This, as you see, is not a heavy control process, but a communication process. It is meant to enhance abilities and therefore belongs to category three above. Here the auditor does not rotely repeat the same command to check if it evokes masses, energies and unconsciousness in the pc; quite the contrary, he is in close communication with the pc, he sets a certain gradient of difficulty to see if the pc can do it and lowers or heightens his standards according to the pc’s performance. The auditor gives the command as much as is needed and in different ways; his main concern is keeping a lively commline with the pc. It is all done in the spirit of team work.

CCH 3 has to do with duplication and understanding. The pc has to duplicate and understand the motion shown to him by the auditor on the one side, in order to be able to repeat it by himself or even contribute to the repetition, on the other side. When the auditor transfers his own motion from the right side to the left in order to repeat it there, this repetition is done symmetrically. When he has done a motion to the right with his right hand, he will do the same motion to the left with his left hand.

Gradients of difficulty are established by a) the number of corners, or changes, a motion has; b) speed of the motion; c) distance between the hands of the two. (They don’t have to touch all the time.)

The whole purpose is to make the pc feel certain, on a gradient of difficulty, concerning his ability to duplicate and repeat a particular motion. When the pc has a win on this gradient - which presupposes that he had to do some work on it - the auditor goes on to CCH 4.

CCH 4: This process follows the same theory as CCH 3. It is a communication process; yet in contrast to CCH 3 it allows the pc more creative self-determinism. There is no set command at all. Auditor and pc sit opposite each other as in CCH 3. The auditor has a book in his hand and makes a motion with this book, a simple one to start with. The motion occurs on a vertical plane midway between auditor and pc. Then he hands the book to the pc and asks him to do the same motion all by himself - not mirror-image-wise, but the same motion. Taking the viewpoint of the book, the book must travel through the same space both times. Just as in CCH 3, the auditor has the determine the right gradient of difficulty, repeat the motion he just did until the pc has duplicated and executed it well, lower or heighten his standards if it proved too difficult or too easy for the pc. In both CCH 3 and 4 the auditor needs good observation and good judgment.

The sort of restimulation likely to occur on CCH 3 and 4 is different from CCH 1 and 2. You are not going to see heavy masses and energies, but grief discharges, general misemotions, and realizations about suppressive teaching strategies of parents and teachers. The whole subject of “learning through punishment” gets dragged up out of the depths of the pc’s mind.

You will observe the pc going up the tonescale more and more as you progress from CCH 1 to CCH 4. Each CCH will run shorter than the previous one; CCH 4 is quite often done for some minutes only. Now, with the pc all bright and shiny after CCH 4, the auditor says: “Now let’s see if you can do CCH 1 with the same lightness and keep it all the way through.” -And now they are back to work.

CCH 1-4 is considered one process, consisting of four parts . The EP, by the way, is on CCH 1, because of all the CCHs it is the hardest for keeping one’s spirits high without an effort.


There is the classical objectives EP of “pc going exterior”. This stems from the time when Hubbard was intensely attempting to make OTs - which did not work in this way, as we have seen in Volume 1. The experience does occur off and on, but is of very short duration only. Hence exteriorization cannot be considered a final EP but merely a nice experience - good enough to take a break. Look at the demands of life and work: one is expected to repeat the same actions daily, year in, year out; who cares if one goes exterior or not? Even if exterior one is expected to do one’s job. They are not even giving you a break for it. Nobody wants to know if you happen to be inside or outside your body; what counts, are your products.

For a thetan in good shape it is quite a normal thing to operate from an exterior viewpoint. Therefore, regarding our process, only one question is of importance: What happens when you carry on after the break or the next day? Is the process flat (does it produce any more change) or not? Can the pc - exterior or not - execute the command for the length of time set, or does the bank get in his way?

The senior EP to be had from objectives (beyond going exterior) therefore is a demonstration of competence: the pc can prove to the auditor that he is able to repeat the same action unlimitedly without getting bothered by any circuits, and can do so with full interest and in the best of spirits - for the sole reason that he has decided to do so ! He is fully able and prepared to run something as “nonsensical” as “Give me that hand” for another 25 hours, just because it’s fun!

As the pc is reaching his EP, his level of Havingness is so high that he can communicate without any reservations. Whether with a terminal or without, whether with sense or without - it is all the same to him. You may consider this a bit odd or even impossible - but if you think about it, little children do exactly that. They are constantly in the best of communication; with or without a terminal, with or without making sense. Although one could not take them as models for human behavior in general, they do serve as a good example for the concept of high Havingness.

Given this EP it is obviously nonsense to “check CCHs on the meter” to see if the are charged! You have to DO them with the pc for some hours before you can tell if they are flat or not. And when he is through you can tell by his performance and his indicators. One doesn’t need an E-meter to see that.


Objective processes are described in the book ‘ Creation of Human Ability” [13] and in Tech Vol.III, IVandV. At the time they were researched, they were thought to make people become Clear and OT, because they put the pc at control over his bank or made him go exterior. They probably served their purpose in some cases, but not in all of them. Therefore they came to be reduced in importance and play a different role today. They are an excellent way of making people find out what it means to have a bank, particularly those who are hung up in significance’s (empty words and meanings) and have lost the line to their own subjective certainty. You cannot run such people on subjective recall processes because they won’t tell you what they feel is true but instead try to ”figure out the right answer” . They cannot confront masses but only significance’s. They are afraid to experience things; they go on and on about their lives but don’t dive into the brutal details of a peculiar occurrence. All of which means that they are not well in-session. Such cases are “cracked” by objective processes, simply because they can’t predict what’s going to happen in the course of the auditing. They cannot “figure out the EP”, as they might attempt to do in a subjective process.

Another type of case may have a button on control. They resist being controlled or compulsively control others and themselves. They have great benefits from objective processing. This is as well true for alcoholics and druggies, but again for a different reason: their ability to control and communicate is so broken down that they’ll never find a line into the bank. By means of objective processes they will begin to get in communication with their bank and with the environment as well.

Cases which are heavily out-of-valence respond well to CCH 1-4 in particular. Just get the idea that, with an out-of-valence case, you have not one person in front of you but several. The “chief thetan” is submerged by valences - which is why he cannot make decisions or finish cycles of action. When you give the command, you are talking to a group of people, as it were . They will work it out between themselves which way they are going to execute the command if they are going to do it at all. It may turn into quite a fight. In the end, the “chief thetan” - your pc - wins and is in control.

Objectives may certainly be done on anyone, which is not to say that they bite on everyone. There is nothing wrong with trying, though. Some cases respond extremely well to them, others needing a different approach - just feel indifferent.

A pc whose objectives aren’t in, is hard to audit subjectively as he tends to go effect of the bank. He cross-associates, pulls in bank, isn’t sure what’s real and what isn’t, thinks he’s imagining it all, figures about the session after it’s over and gets into trouble, and so on. This is of no use when you audit subjective processes. There you want a pc who is in causative control over his bank, who can look at one thing at a time, blow it, have a win; get the next bit restimulated, look at it, blow it, have a win, etc. Clean cycles of action. If he can’t do that, he’ll need an objectives rundown.

To finish off it should be mentioned that you have to be prepared for anything with regard to the duration of objective processes - on CCH 1-4 for example, anything between 15 and 150 hours is possible. It takes as long as it takes.


Make sure that the pc understands the concepts and the procedures of objective processes very well, and that he is willing to do them. This is true for all auditing but even more so for objectives as they don’t make sense at all at first glance - unless they are explained well. The pc will not be in session as long as objective processes seem strange and peculiar to him.

Clear the words and the concept of C-C-H (control-communication-havingness), and of objective versus subjective auditing. Then clarify the mechanics of restimulation brought about by them. When the pc has understood the pertinent mechanisms you can tell him: “Now let’s see if you can run this process for half an hour without keying anything in”. -You will have his full interest and cooperation as the pc feels challenged personally such as he would in sports, for example. Get him to agree to a “test stretch” for the EP. But don’t do it below half an hour. The higher you put it, the cleaner the pc will come out. But he may feel it’s overwhelming or unrealistic when you ask him to do it for two hours. Do it gradiently, step by step. There will be the point when he knows with certainty that he could continue forever. That is the EP.

(For reference, see BTB 30 Sept 1971 RA, “Model Session for CCH I-IV”; Ability Mag.34, “Havingness”, in Tech Vol.II; the booklet “Scientology Clear Procedure”, 1957; “Creation of Human Ability”; all entries on “objectives” and “CCHs” in the index of Tech Vol.X.)

The Auditor's Tools:
C) Postulate Auditing


In subjective auditing, done by recalling incidents on the time track, the main target of the auditor is the well-aimed removal of 2nd postulates so that 1st postulates may be either executed or canceled. This was explained in the philosophical discussion in Part Two. The life of man, or better, the games of a thetan, are determined by postulates. They, however, are not all his own. Foreign-made entities and the Genetic Entity put their pictures, charges and postulates into the head of the unaware thetan - and drive him “out of valence”. He takes on valences foreign to him; his own valence is submerged.

Postulate Auditing is a blend, a condensation, of various techniques Hubbard developed over the years (as the expert will immediately notice). They are going to be covered one after the other in detail. It is very safe to use for beginners and may take them a long way in handling the cases of their friends or family. The expert will find it provides a very smooth handling for his “rough cases”. It can be done without an E-meter and is presented here with that intention. Those familiar with the E-meter may of course use it as the meter makes for precision and session speed. The procedure is the same. Remarks addressed to meter users may be ignored by others. (These will be “F/N” and “TA”. They are explained in the chapter on the E-meter.)


The first thing one would have to do in auditing, is finding out what’s bothering the pc. What he tells you is called an item. Any item, to be auditable, must have the pc’s interest - and a read on the meter. Those two conditions must be fulfilled for a successful session to occur. You don’t audit items the pc isn’t interested in, or non-reading ones.

An item is never just an observation of the environment. “It’s raining” is not an item (even when it reads), not in this way of saying it. An item contains the emotional involvement of the pc in the way it’s stated and has the form of an Attitude, Emotion, Sensation or Pain (AESP). So what’s wrong with rain? “Too much rain is unhealthy. “This is an item. It has the form of an attitude, i.e. a thought or postulate about life. Or: “It makes me sad”. This is an item because it contains an emotion. Or: “When it rains I always get a foggy head” - a sensation. Or: “My bones ache when it rains” - a pain.

An item does not have to be defined as narrowly as just described, though. After all, there are often situations which one just generally feels unhappy about. To split them up in AESPs would not do them any justice. Examples would be: “the death of my grandmother”, “I lost my job”, “my bronchitis”. When someone is full of pain and sorrow about his mishap, one should allow him first of all to just talk it through. Whilst he is talking one will see the complexity of the situation fall apart, and single AESPs will emerge all by themselves. These one should note down and take them up later.

A valid item would always affect the pc as a misemotion, i.e. it would be stated at 2.0 on the tonescale or below. All statements made below 2.0 indicate that a 2nd postulate has been restimulated. Rule of thumb: 1st postulate: reach, start of a game, above 2.0 on the tonescale. 2nd postulate: withdraw, stop, below 2.0.


Lock-scanning is the lightest way of entering a case. Skillfully applied, it will get the pc down to the secondary, the engram. and finally the postulate. So lock-scanning may not only produce a key-out but even a full erasure. As one is always working right in the pc’s center of attention, he usually is super interested in the action and very much in session.

Here is a brief sketch of this method: the pc is afraid of horses. Referring to the section above, this would be a good example for a generally upsetting situation. It is not a very precisely defined AESP-item. Never the less it is a valid one, because it is situated below 2.0 on the tonescale and the pc would like to do away with it. So to start with, the auditor asks him for the earliest time the pc can easily recall when he was afraid of horses, gets the answer and then has the pc recall all later times when he was afraid of horses, up to present time (PT). Then the auditor asks for the earliest time available now, gets the answer and again runs all later locks to PT. And again. And again. And again. Always the same procedure.

On each run through the pc will drop some of the locks of the previous runs and come up with new locks, or new details of locks already mentioned. Enturbulated theta is converted into free theta. More attention units and more confront power are available for use. Consequently moments of heavier restimulation will appear, simply because the pc can confront them now. He will contact secondaries. More enturbulated theta is converted into free theta; confront power increases even more. Now, as you continue your lock-scanning, the thetan will “fall” into the engram. When all later locks and secondaries are cleaned off and the basic engram is left all by itself, the pc will be able to run it as easily as a cat lapping up warm milk.

You always and unvaryingly stick to your earliest-to-PT routine. This applies to running the basic incident, too . You can immediately tell what the basic is: it’s one of the times the pc has put a stop on his 1st postulate by making a 2nd postulate. This usually occurs in the context of an engram or an implant. Get the beginning the pc can find now, run through to its end, then scan locks to PT. Go again to the basic, see if there is an earlier beginning in the incident, run the whole incident through to its end, scan locks to PT. Soon the pc’s interest will be totally off the later locks; he’s now fully ready to use all of his free attention and confront the basic incident (engram/implant). Now you go earlier beginning-to-end, earlier-beginning-to-end, and again, and again, till he has found the beginning of the incident. And along

with this he will come up with the postulate which has kept the basic incident and the whole chain in place. Technically speaking, the auditor changed from lock scanning to “narrative style”. The difference is that in lock-scanning a whole chain of incidents is run through (from its earliest beginning to present time), whereas in narrative style it is only a single one. The pc “narrates” the content of this particular incident from its earliest beginning to its end.

During both the lock-scanning and the narrative part, the original, very generally worded item “fear of horses” will break up into various AESP-items. In context with the incidents the pc tells, further attitudes, emotions, physical sensations and pains in context with horses will be mentioned. When these utterances are accompanied by corresponding indicators and a read on the meter, the auditor must note them down. They will get taken up later one by one.


As we just saw: the auditing procedure where you have the pc tell you an incident from beginning to end, again and again and again, is called “narrative style”. It helps the pc to bring order into the chaos of the incident. When he starts out he will just see a glimpse of it which may be at its end or somewhere in the middle. By asking the pc to find the earliest possible beginning and to tell the whole story from there to the end, the auditor assists the pc to gradually raise his confront of the incident. Finally he will see it in all details. He may have to run it through twenty or thirty times, though! Each time through, known data won’t get mentioned again and new data, so far unknown, will appear.

There is one potential danger in narrative style: the pc may start narrating the incident “by memory?’. He will start mocking it up again! This is not what you want. To avoid it, you must explain very clearly to the pc what he ought to do. It’s like he was watching a TV screen which the auditor can’t see. So the pc must tell the auditor what he sees on the screen, i.e. what he sees now while the action is happening, not what he saw the last time through the incident. (What the pc “sees” is not limited to his visual impressions only, but refers to 54 further sense perceptics as well! [1]) Only what he sees now is of importance. “I see a man. He walks into a room. From the left; there is a door. He stops by the table. It’s dark and cold. I am afraid. Etc.” This way the auditor can tell how the pc is moving from the level of action to the levels of emotion and postulate. He can see the shift of importance’s. And he can see how the incident is gradually erasing and thus recognize when to stop. When the pc starts talking “about” the incident instead of describing what he sees, he will be beginning to put something there where there is actually nothing. This is a problem common to all thetans. It is so much easier to acknowledge that there is something than to acknowledge that there is nothing! Failing to accept that there is nothing, the pc will either put something there or pull in some other engram or picture, just so that he has something to talk about. But: this will go along with bad indicators, such as glumness, slowness, unavailability of data, and on the meter it will produce a sticky needle and finally a high and very stuck TA. Developing an awareness of when a process is complete, when the EP has been reached, and so when to stop, is one of the vitally important points of learning to audit.


The pc will run through his incidents as described by a scale called “Points of Case Address” [1]. It goes (upwards): matter effort - emotion - reason - aesthetics. To start with, the pc will be busy with the level of effort and counter-effort. He’ll be talking about matter, energy, space, time and action. When this goes flat and he goes through the incident again (and again and again), he picks out the emotions: that’s the next level up. After that has gone flat the auditor sends him through again (and again and again) and the decisions and postulates made during the incident become available. There are several of them, usually, not just one. This is the level of “reason” on the scale. On this level the pc will encounter (amongst others) the crucial 2nd postulate, recognize it for what it is and as-is it. That being done he’ll marvel at the whole incident, how it could have happened to him, how he could have made such a postulate, how the events of the incident interrelate with the actions in his later life - he is moving up to the level of aesthetics. “Now isn’t that something! Wow! Would you believe it!” Aesthetics. Admiration (Factors 14 and 29) - Now, the whole incident is erased.

Not only in the basic incident but in locks as well, the pc will voice postulates. They have the form of decisions regarding a state of being, doing or having. They describe precisely the state the pc is habitually in. His chronic state of being, doing and having, both physically and mentally, is determined by the sum of his own postulates and decisions, no matter if they are sane or aberrated. Those voiced in context with a lock, secondary or engram are of course aberrated ones. They are usually worded in an imperative way. Examples: “I don’t know what they want!”; “It doesn’t work!”; “It can’t be!”; “I cut all my feelings off.”; “I’m happy it’s over.”; “I can’t reach it.”; “I just never manage . “; “It kills me” . They often go along with a startled expression or a blush on the pc’s face, with him suddenly getting agitated, assertive or possibly tearful - and with a read on the meter. The auditor must keep his ears open for such utterances and note them down verbatim as they come . They play a crucial role in really cleaning up the pc’s case when they are run in the next step, by repeater technique.


A normal session would run like this: pc has a complaint. Its either an attitude, emotion, sensation or pain (AESP). Let us say he has a “burning sensation in the lungs”. This is followed

down the track by lock-scanning and narrative technique. The pc finds a beginning of his complaint at the age of three and runs through all locks several times, until they get really “thin” . The auditor, every time he returns the pc to the beginning of the chain, makes sure to ask if there is an earlier beginning to this complaint. Suddenly a picture shows up which the pc can’t put anywhere in this lifetime. They follow it up and find out he was caught in a burning house, couldn’t get out and burnt to death. It was in 1651. The postulate found is: “I’m always the victim”. The incident erases, the pc looks good and bright, on the meter there is an F/N.

What is the auditor going to do when the pc does not “fall into the engram”? Take a variation of the example before: The complaint (burning sensation in the lungs) is traced down to childhood. The pc is twelve years old, sits by the table and watches with terror as his parents have a bad fight. In the back there is a fire going in the fireplace. Nothing earlier, no engram. Lockscanning is done till all locks are erased; the basic incident (the fight) is gone through in narrative style; the pc voices the postulate: “I’m always the victim”. The incident erases, pc is happy, F/N . This was not an engram . It was a heavy lock, at best a secondary (a moment when the pc felt threatened by a loss, i.e. that of his parents.)

There is something foul here, obviously. How can a severe 2nd postulate be made under circumstances not worse than a light secondary? Didn’t we learn that it takes a lot of force (engram/ implant) to stop a thetan sufficiently so that he makes a 2nd postulate? How does all this fit in together? Answer: the engram we are looking for is not on the pc’s track, but on that of an entity. It was restimulated by the open fire in the fireplace which formed part of the fighting incident, and thereupon locked itself up with the pc. This was only possible, because the pc was - due to the quarrel between his parents - emotionally troubled and less alert than usual. Being down on the tonescale is the prerequisite for a key-in.

In the first example above, the pc found a basic on his own track: 1651, the burning house. This is the moment the 2nd postulate was made, and it was made by himself. We know by theory that there cannot be anything earlier than that, so it is an absolute basic. In the second example, the pc found a basic, too: the fight between the parents. As there was nothing earlier, it was - to the best of the pc’s knowledge - a basic it could be erased. Yet it was a basic relative to the pcs track only! As the absolute basic must be an engram or an implant, but was not to be found on the pc’s time track in the second example, it must be on that of an entity. The restimulators prevalent during the quarrel between the pc’s parents caused this entity to awaken, connect up with the pc and pour its postulate over him. This is a relative basic. It doesn’t matter if this was the first time a connection was made, or if it was an old connection with an entity which had been dormant in the meantime. Speaking in technical terms, it is simply a lock. In the first example, the absolute basic was on the time track of the pc. In the second one, the relative basic was found on the pc’s time track, the absolute basic on that of an entity. When it cannot be found on the pc’s track it has to be on that of an entity there is no other option.

This is proven by the phenomena one gets with repeater tech. It is applied after the basic has been found and erased, be it a relative or an absolute basic. The postulates voiced by the pc are repeated by him, one after the other, in order to detect further incidents connected with them. “Repeater Technique: the repetition of a word or phrase in order to produce movement on the time track into an entheta area containing that word or phrase. (. . .) Repetition of such a phrase, over and over sucks the patient back down the track and into contact with an engram which contains it” [2].

Going back to example one, above: the auditor asks the pc to repeat “I’m always the victim” over and over again and tell him all incidents which get washed into view this way. The pc will find a few incidents on his own track when he used this postulate to make himself right in a situation, or to explain why he couldn’t cope with it. He gives them a fleeting glance and erases them. A clean-up action of ten minutes or so; all concerning his own time track.

Now let’s look at example two: here as well the auditor asks the pc to repeat the postulate, but a lot more than in example one is caused: the absolute basic, on a different track than the pc’s, comes to view. It occurred in 1943 when a farmer burnt to his death in his barn. The pc knows this barn, still all black and ruined; he has seen it in his childhood. As he was born in 1944 he assumes that he must have been this farmer in his past life . The session gets stickier and stickier the more the pc finds out about this. The auditor asks him if this incident may possibly not be his own. The pc feels immediate relief. The auditor gives only the minimally required explanations; the bulk of them he saves up till after the session. The pc has now acknowledged to himself that he was not this farmer and that the action did not happen on his own track, and again the session goes as smooth as silk. The pc gets all details of the incident, finds the moment when the farmer made the postulate of “Why is it always me?”, and the incident erases. Note that the wording of the actual postulate found in the incident usually differs to some extent from the postulate the pc mentioned originally. Therefore care must be taken to get the exact postulate for each incident separately.

After this success the pc again repeats “I’m always the victim” and yet another incident is washed up! This time it is that of a woman being burnt at the stake, in 1532. Again the pc recognizes that it is not his own timetrack. After this incident is fully run the postulate of the woman is found: “I’m a victim of my good faith”. Pc cognites that he always had trouble trusting people. Again the postulate “I’m always the victim” is repeated; this time to no result. Pc smiles and is certain that there is nothing left in connection with this postulate and that it actually has no further power over him. (F/N on the meter.)The pc reports after a few weeks that the burning sensation in his lungs has not occurred any more, and that he finds himself more self-confident and outgoing in life.


Sometimes it happens that sessions get slow and sticky after a while . Typical phenomena: pc uncertain about the exact content of the incident, can’t move back and forth on the track, has a stuck picture, sees nothing at all, starts seeing details which belong to other incidents, gets various incidents mixed up with each other. On the meter this is accompanied by a TA rising high and finally getting stuck.

There are only four reasons for this: 1. The pc is working on an incident on his own timetrack and has not confronted certain parts of it yet. 2. A similar incident is concurrently in restimulation. It may be earlier or later on the timetrack. 3. An entity has been restimulated and is not recognized as such. Auditor and pc still assume that the incident is on the pc’s track; but this isn’t the case. It’s an incident on a different track. 4. Several entities are in restimulation at the same time.

The session will get going again as soon as the correct reason has been found (Fac. 28 and Ax. 29). Handling for 1: When the pc cannot confront something it is advisable to run later similar incidents in order to reduce their charge and build up the confront power of the pc. Should there be no such incidents, there is no alternative to repeatedly running through the incident in question, until it has cleared up in all aspects. Handling for 2-4: Find the entities or incidents associated with the incident you are running and run them out, then return to the incident you originally started out from. Simply ask the pc for the various possibilities, when you hit upon the right one, he will brighten up immediately.


Situation: you have run your pc through an absolute basic on his own or someone else’s track, he finds his 2nd postulate - but has no full end phenomena. How come?

Well, you ran it from the pc’s viewpoint only (if it happened on his own track), or from the viewpoint of the person to whom it happened (if it is from another’s track). Have the pc look around some more in the incident and you will find that he still has attention on some of the other people involved. Have him additionally run the incident from the viewpoint of these people, one by one; have him speak in the first person as if it had happened to him. Have him get each person’s postulate, too. This makes the pc go into that person’s valence knowingly. Doing so, he will disconnect from his identification with that person; the valence will break off him. Its power over the pc could only exist as long as he went into the valence unknowingly. Strip one valence after the other off the pc. When the incident itself has been erased: run these valence postulates by repeater tech also! It will make the pc clean up all the times he was out of valence in this regard. There will be a marvelous EP.


The basic idea of Postulate Auditing is to get straight down to the postulates which keep the case together. Such postulates were already given a lot of attention in “Dianetics” . There Hubbard asked the auditor to take mental notes of habitual utterances of the pc in or out of session, so as to get a key for “cracking his case”. Such utterances were termed “bouncers”, “denyers” (deny-ers), “misdirectors”, etc. in the Dianetics book. When they appear in session, the recall work done up to this point usually comes to a halt. To give an example of a normal Book One session: the pc has found an engram and goes several times through it from beginning to end, until it is emptied of all details and its whole charge is deflated - which means it has been erased. (This is the “narrative style”.) In contrast, when a session comes to a standstill, it may look like this: the pc narrates the contents of his engram and suddenly sees no more of it. He says: “There is nothing there!” However, as he doesn’t look as if he were through with it but appears to be stuck in the middle of an incident, the auditor assumes that this must be a ‘“denyer”. He has the pc repeat: “There is nothing there - there is nothing there - there is nothing there” - etc. All of a sudden the pc will get a picture of the incident when the postulate “There is nothing there” was made. As soon as this incident is erased, he can return to the engram that was left open before, and erase it as well.

Technically speaking, the auditor changed over from “narrative style” to “repeater technique”, so as to follow a postulate down to its point of origin. Narrative style and repeater technique are two of the sources for Postulate Auditing. Another is that of lock-scanning, taken from “Science of Survival”. In “Dianetics” one was trying to get as directly as possible to the engram causing the pc’s trouble. The auditor would straight forwardly ask for it. The earlier, the better. When one got an incident this way, one would reduce its charge by having the pc describe it, and then look for earlier similar incidents. One threw the pc in at the deep end, so to speak, and had him wade in deeper and deeper. It could be quite a strain for him. Later, in “Science of Survival”, Hubbard revised and simplified this approach by having the pc run light moments of restimulation to begin with, moments when engrams “locked up” with the pc. Such moments were called “locks”. In contrast to engrams, these locks were not run earlier - earlier - earlier on the timetrack, but always from the earliest lock one happened to have found, to present time. Only then an earlier lock was looked for. This approach has the advantage of reducing all charge between the lock found and the present, before going earlier. Additionally, one never demands too much of the pc and he stays mentally and physically in good shape all along.

Out of the combination of narrative style, repeater technique and lock-scanning, the four main parts of Postulate Auditing are derived:

First part: You have the pc tell you what his difficulties are and get an item you can audit.

Second part: You have the pc find the earliest beginning, the moment when his troubles really started. This chain of incidents (from the earliest to the present) is run through by lockscanning till all later locks are erased and only the basic incident is left, usually an engram or implant.

Third part: This basic incident is repeatedly run through narrative style until there is nothing left to say about it, until no further pictures are pressing in on the pc, until he can laugh about it. That is an erasure.

Fourth part: All postulates the auditor took note of in the second and third part, are run with repeater technique. In the process of this, incidents will come into view when the pc tried to “prove” that he was unable to cope. (This relates them to Service Facsimiles). As well foreign-made incidents of entities or the GE will show up. Whatever their origin, each is run through in narrative style to erasure. The pc will come to differentiate more and more with regard to correct authorship, and correspondingly become “master in his own house”. In the end he may even go Clear.

Postulate Auditing is built around the concept that the incidents of the reactive mind are cross-referenced and interwoven by means of postulates. (See A = A = A.) Entities of any description can only connect up with the pc if he has already succumb postulates in operation. By unconsciously using and habitually not-ising them, he creates mental mass, a chronic charge which free-floating entities can cling to. Which makes things worse, of course. Only by finding out who has done what, by assigning correct authorship, can the knot be disentangled eventually (Ax. 29, Fac.28). In the final analysis, it is the pc’s own responsibility what sort of case and what size case he has - and that he has one at all.

The above reasoning explains why incidents found in the fourth part of the sequence (the auditing of postulates) are run by repeater technique instead of being followed up by going earlier similar. (“Is there an earlier similar incident?”) It’s because repeater technique will bring up the exact incident that is ready to be “plucked” . The mass backing up the picture is produced by a postulate you already know - it’s the one you are working with. So you don’t have to go E/S (earlier similar), because you are not - in the attempt to find a 2nd postulate - looking for a basic. You have the postulate already. By repeating it you wave it about like a piece of fly paper to find out which bit of mass (both home-made and foreign-made) is going to stick to it. And when you got one, you clean it up nicely and then you wave your fly paper about again, to see what else will to stick to it. And so on. After a while there won’t be any more bits of mass which are going to respond to that particular sort of fly paper, and you know the room is clean. No more flies of that kind. And then you pull out your next bit of fly paper, the next postulate, and start the process all over again. You are never interested in earlier similar flies. You are only concerned with that particular fly that just got stuck to your paper.


First part: Finding an item.

1. “What do you want handled?” “What is bothering you?” (The pc will answer with a generally worded item or a specific AESP-item)

Second part: Scanning locks.

2. “Recall the earliest time you can when you had (item)!” (Give the item exactly as it was worded).

3. “Tell me about it!” (Get as much time/place/form/event as the pc can give you easily.)

4. Instruction to the pc: “Tell me in the present tense as if you were reading it off a TV screen. Tell me all you can actually see or feel; no more, no less.” (Note: before giving the next command you may have to run through this particular incident a few times to reduce its charge if the pc demonstrates a lot of it. Cool it off first, then carry on towards PT. )

5. “Go to the next incident towards present time when you had (item) !”

6. Repeat 5 until pc is back in PT. (Encourage him to tell only what comes easily to him. No effort, please!)

7. “Is there an earlier time when you had (item)?”

8. Repeat 5 and 6. Instruct the pc: “Only tell me what’s on the screen now and do not add what you know from before. Don’t put it there again by memory. Just always tell me what you see and feel now”.

9. Repeat 7 and 8 until the pc has gone to the earliest time he can find. That is the basic, the beginning of the chain.

10. Make the pc clean up all later locks by repeatedly running from basic to PT. Each time he will get some more data out of the basic. Keep it effortless. Don’t ever push him into the basic. During the steps 2-10, do watch out for further AESPs the pc may voice . They could be useful later on . Do not let it show in your behavior when he has said one. Just make sure that you write it down verbatim (and with the corresponding read on the meter.)

Third part: Running the basic incident.

11. With all later locks gone, the basic is now free for inspection. Take the pc through it from beginning to end. Ask him each time if it possibly began earlier, then take him through again from the new beginning. Sooner or later he will find the exact beginning. (Only he knows that. He’ll brighten up when he has found it.)

12. Have him go through the incident repeatedly until he has duplicated everything on the level of effort and action. Then the incident is “flat”, i.e. there is no more change. Be careful not to “plough the pc in” during these repetitions. Don’t have him dig in, run him through. The hazy or peculiar bits will clear up as the pc goes through the incident a few more times. Just make sure that he gets each time as much time, place, form and event as is easily available. Don’t have him guess. Have him duplicate the incident.

13. Now send the pc through on the level of emotion: “Now go through the incident again and tell me all the emotions you can pick up!” Give this command only when the pc has not come up with emotions all by himself. Have him run the incident repeatedly until it is flat regarding emotions.

14. Now send him through on the level of thoughts, postulates, decisions. There will be several of them. “What decisions did you make during the incident; what thoughts did you have? “The 2nd postulate is the moment when the pc finally succumbed to the counter-intentions against him. Ask him specifically for it only if he does not volunteer the information. (Make a circle around each reading postulate, as you will come back to it later.)

15 . Find the exact wording of the 2nd postulate. When the pc has found it he will have VGIs (and an F/N) . The incident will erase; the pc will not be interested in looking at it further.

Fourth part: Auditing postulates.

16. Go through your worksheets and pick out all the postulates the pc has originated on his way to the EP. Write them on a separate sheet of paper. This is your “postulate list” .

17. Explain to the pc that this step serves to restimulate and deactivate further incidents, in connection with the postulates he has voiced. Use repeater tech on the postulate with the most charge (biggest read). Ask him to repeat the postulate a dozen times (or so) on his own. It will either bite and trigger some incidents, or go flat and F/N. (Do this step even if there is no read on calling out the postulate. Remember that it did read when the pc mentioned it originally. You cannot be sure if it is as-ised unless you try heating it up by repeater technique.)

18. Run each incident which comes up on a given postulate in narrative style, until it is erased. Some will erase at first glance, others will have to be run through a few (or many) times. Do follow the pc here. Don’t make the incident more important than it is to him naturally, particularly when it is part of his present life and can be dealt with in a few words. No pressure, please! Light incidents of the pc’s present life usually don’t F/N. The F/N generally occurs after a whole series of such light incidents; or after a heavy incident has been worked through and erased - be it the pc’s or that of an entity.

19. Keep using repeater tech on the same postulate until the pc knows with certainty that there is absolutely nothing connected with this postulate any more . The postulate will F/N whilst the pc pronounces it! The pc will look very bright at this point. - On this step, many pc’s have great cognitions. They see how their life is determined by a network of postulates which they hang on like a puppet on its strings.

20. Now go back to your list of postulates, take them up one by one in the sequence of their charged-ness (read size) and audit them with steps 17-19.

21. Then go back to step 1 and start the whole cycle again by asking the pc for a new item to work on. Or keep on working on the same item by taking up the AESPs incurred up to this point. Which decision you make, depends entirely on the pc’s interest. When his “fear of horses” has been handled with a single run through the steps 1-20 - marvelous. But when he is not quite so sure, you find your entry point through the AESPs already mentioned. (The “A’s i.e. the attitudes, you have actually handled already on the postulate-part of the sequence as all attitudes are basically postulates . )

Practical notes:

To reduce an incident and finally erase it, you may have to run through it twenty to forty times. Don’t be impatient. It takes as long as it takes. Observe the pc. As long as he is coming up on the tonescale, everything is fine . When he is through, he will be genuinely cheerful. You’ll know it when you see it.

Don’t get worried if each run through the incident brings up different data. It may change considerably as the pc keeps repeating it! The final version may be very much unlike the first version. The explanation for this phenomenon is given in the “Scale of Confront” [1].

On the fourth part, step 19: A dozen or more incidents may appear on a given postulate! Don’t worry: when there is nothing left there is nothing left, and the pc knows it. It is almost impossible to overrun this.

Each session you do will be different, but underlying each variation there is the pattern of steps 1-19. So stick to the steps as closely as you can, but be prepared to be flexible so as not to impede the alive-ness of the session.


(This section addresses meter users in particular, but it is as well of general interest. It is about F/Ns and when to interrupt sessions without any risk.)

An F/N at session start is usually not a must in Postulate Auditing. Particularly in the first session, at step 1, the pc has so much attention on his troubles that an F/N obviously cannot be expected.

The whole cycle through the steps 1-19 may take several sessions, lasting between eight and fifteen hours, in some cases longer. When heavy engrams are contacted and many postulates voiced, it will naturally take longer than it would with a light case. Of course you will have to interrupt the cycle now and then, to take a break or to end off for the day. The best moment for this is at the end of any of the major parts of the sequence. At times, however, it may have to be done at a less optimum point, for example when an incident was reduced but not erased, or a postulate was worked on with repeater technique and still is incomplete, i.e. no F/N on it yet. When you carry on after the break, you will naturally take the session up at the exact point where you ended off. So you cannot expect an F/N here either.

You can absolutely rely on this: it goes on after the break or the next day, as if you never had interrupted the session. The case keeps quiet. It doesn’t run away in the meantime or restructure itself. What you are handling with the pc is so fundamental and has been stable for such a long time that it won’t change just in a few hours.

Another case: Supposing you had erased an incident or de-activated a postulate and had had an F/N before the break, you would naturally expect an F/N at the start of the next session. And then you notice with dismay that there isn’t one! Don’t worry about it. Just carry on. What step follows next? Or: What postulate is next on your list? The F/N is suppressed by the fact that the next step or postulate is already keyed in . This is true in most cases. However, should there be a whole night or even several days between two sessions and should there be no F/N and even a high TA at the start of the next session, you would be well advised to ask the pc: “How have you been doing since your last session?” He will tell you. If he gives you a well-reading item which is entirely different from what you would have expected according to your notes, you do take the new item up. Work it through and then return to the point on your program where you left off, and continue with your next auditing step, the next postulate on your list, or a new item (step 1). Usually, though, whatever happened during the break will have to do with the next auditing step you would have done anyway; you’ll have no problem recognizing this. (In one case the pc was off for two full years but the auditing could continue as if the last session had only been yesterday.)

You cannot audit against the bank but only with it, and with the willingness of the pc to confront it. Follow the direction the attention of the pc takes; pick up what is available next . When it reads it is offering itself to be taken up. This way you find your entry point into the bank quite effortlessly. Remember that the auditor first listens and only then computes. Never make a million computations about a case and then sit down to audit something that isn’t really there . You would risk projecting your own case, or that of another, on the case of the pc. This would violate point 1 and 21 of the Auditor’s Code.

There may be cycles within cycles within cycles. This does happen occasionally. But never leave an open cycle incomplete! You’ll plough your pc under this way, and yourself along with it. Therefore: take good notes - particularly of the exact wording of reading items and postulates - and keep your worksheets tidy. This way you won’t lose sight of where you were coming from and where you are going to.

(References: all HCOBs on R3RA and on Dianetics, see index of Tech Vol.X-XII. For lock-scanning: Science of Survival, Bk.II, Ch. 10 & 11[16]. Recommended in particular are the two bulletins called “The time track and running engrams by chains”, one of 15 May 1963, the other of 8 June 1963, both in Tech Vol.V. As well worth reading is the second half of HCOB 3 April 1966, “Dianetic Auditing Course”, page 161-163 in Tech Vol.VI. It demonstrates how easy auditing can be.)

The Auditor’s Tools:
D) Auditing With The E-Meter

l.The Many Roles Of The Auditor

The auditor as a one-man-band must be aware that he is not just the auditor as such but plays other roles, too. This becomes apparent to the extent that he moves away from using the simple techniques described up to this point, auditing for the benefit of his friends or his family, and begins increasingly to work with the E-meter in the attempt to resolve complex case situations and take someone up to Clear. Once one starts working on a professional level it is unavoidable that one differentiate one’s activity into different roles, even though the whole team may consist of oneself only. Therefore the auditor must make it clear to the pc from which role he is talking so as not to confuse him when he changes from one role to the other, as a different behavior pattern goes with each one. (It’s easier when each function is performed by a different person.)


Before a session cycle, an interview is done. Interviews are ordered by the person who is overseeing the auditors, the case supervisor or “C/S”. (The role of the case supervisor is described in the section further on.)The interview is done exactly according to the instructions of the C/S.

Out-of-session chats should never concern the case of the pc. They are not an interview. An interview is always done formally. It may happen, though, that the pc - perhaps even inadvertently - comes up with case data out of session. Of this a written note must be made and handed in to the case supervisor to be kept in the pc’s folder so that the case will not turn into an enigma at some later stage.


The most fundamental tasks of the auditor have already been discussed thoroughly in the chapter on simple techniques. Therefore it seems sufficient to keep it short and only repeat a key paragraph here: The auditor has his auditing commands and his TRs. He does no more than putting the pc in session (TR-0). giving the auditing command (TR-1), acknowledging the pc’s answer (TR-2), and getting the pc back to the auditing command when he wanders off (TR-3, TR-4) . Further than that, the auditor does not talk. His behavior is wholly determined by the Auditor’s Code . There is nothing ritualistic or artificial about this code. It provides a frame of reference for the auditor’s behavior which he is obliged to adhere to, as otherwise the session would come to a bad end. When it is violated, wins and results cannot be guaranteed. It is a strictly functional code. with the exception of some “political” points (24-28) which have no bearing on the actual session.

When the pc originates something which makes it unwise to continue the particular process he is on, i.e. when a situation arises which cannot be solved by TR-4 but in fact requires a different process than the one that is being run, the auditor ends off. He asks the pc if there is anything else he would like to say or ask before the end of the session, and hands the folder in to the C/S (case supervisor).


When auditor and C/S are different persons and when there are several auditors to one C/S, the C/S would not himself audit. He may never even see the pc whose case he is C/Sing. The C/S receives a cardboard folder which contains the session write-up done by the auditor, and adjudicates what should be done in the next session. If needed, he corrects the auditor by giving him a study assignment to do.

The C/S works on data only, not on opinion. To him, what isn’t written in the folder isn’t true. Anything relevant to handling the pc’s case must appear in written form and be put in the folder may it come from the interviewer, the auditor, the examiner (see below), a friend or a family member of the pc. If he doesn’t have enough data to work out a strategy for solving the case he tells the interviewer to do an interview and get data. Or he asks the course supervisor or the ethics consultant for data.

In truth, the C/S does a data evaluation: he finds “plus-points’ and “out-points”, importance’s and unimportance’s, and compares them. (See Mgmt. Dictionary and Axiom 58.)

In this work, he is not interested in significance’s, but in masses He judges the importance of data by the amount of E-meter reads they have. In his program, he puts the area of biggest charge as the first one to be handled. This area is most real to the pc because it troubles him the most, and can be confronted best. A program is a series of steps which help the pc to as-is the charge he has on the areas mentioned in his interview. Each step on the program should have the pc fully “in session” . “In session” means high interest and lots of big reads. This is the mark of a good program. An uneventful program and a bored pc indicate that the C/S didn’t evaluate his data well. (For full instructions on C/Sing see the C/S-Series in Vol.X and the “Class VIII Notes” by Bill Robertson.)

In the case of a one-man band the auditor himself is the C/S Even then he does the C/Sing in his own time and space and no during the session. (See ivory tower rule.) He does not “C/S in the chair”. Going off the process and replacing it by another one, is considered so, for example. Changing the process to suit the pc’s origination’s, is a Q & A. (See the Tech Dict for this term also C/S-Series 55 and 89, in Vol X.) - But: getting a result is always the best excuse for whatever one did. Always keep the product in mind and don’t be rigid about the rules. (See ‘ In structor’s Stable Data” in [1], and HCO PL 19 March 1968, Service”, in Mgmt. Vol. 0.)


It is found to be valuable for another than the “usual” auditor to be available immediately after session, to look at the pc and note down his indicators and meter reactions. This person is called the “examiner”. He works with the E-meter. The pc can comment to him about the session, his wins or losses. This provides additional data for the C/S. If, for example, the pc seems upset at session end, it wouldn’t go unnoticed.

Also the pc has someone to whom he can make a statement about how he feels in general or with regard to his auditing, if he needs to. The auditor is one “ear” of the C/S, the examiner the other.

The examiner fulfills another function as well he takes care of attesting. This is also checked on an E-meter. It is customary to attest to the completion of a study course or auditing rundown after completing it. “To attest” means to make it known to all concerned. This is done by telling the examiner about the auditing or training cycle one has completed, and putting in writing what one has got out of it. This makes a public acknowledgment and validation for the completion, and does help the pc to accept that he has handled this particular aspect of awareness or ability. The examiner makes sure that the person attesting has good indicators and the corresponding needle response on the E-meter.

The attest by a pc or student always refers to a potential performance, not a real performance. He attests to the fact that an ability has been newly learned or rehabilitated; he does not attest to already having demonstrated it many times under all sorts of difficult circumstances.

We are not expecting people to suddenly be able to do something that is “out-gradient” just because they have attested. We are looking for an improvement in the ordinary daily performance. For example this woman who just attested to a communications course. She can talk to her neighbor now and before she couldn’t. You wouldn’t expect her to suddenly be able to speak to twenty thousand people in a football stadium! But what she has achieved, should be acknowledged by attesting to it. And then it’s up to her to expand on her ability by making observations, applying her new knowledge, studying and drilling. How soon and how far one progresses, is always a personal matter.

This may sound easy and matter-of-course. It isn’t, unfortunately. Because some people will always project all their desires and failed purposes into the attests of others, and if they see another who has attested Clear and doesn’t live up to their standards or imagination, they will say “it isn’t worth going Clear”, or “if that’s a Clear then I’ve been Clear all along, too”. And so it goes with OTIII, Excalibur, and Case Completion. And it always was so, throughout the history of scientology. Whosoever makes it to the top of the bridge must be the exact superman one always wished to be oneself: “If he doesn’t act the way I think he should, then he just can’t be an OT”.

The C/S must never make this mistake. He looks at Fred as Fred goes into session, and he looks at Fred as Fred comes out of session, and if there was improvement in between (concerning the subject matter of the level audited), he allows Fred to attest. And he makes sure that Fred does a course or a little application program so Fred can settle in on his new ability level. And as long as Fred keeps improving, all is well. -The C/S never compares Fred with Joe! He never compares anyone with anyone else. He only measures improvement along the individual gradient scale of the person concerned. He never tries to turn a duck into an eagle, yet he always tries to turn a duck into a better duck.

(Note: The failure of the standardized sequence of bridge steps, which has occurred consistently since 1968, isn’t just that it gives an unthinking approach to “handling” all cases, but that it allows free rein to this sort of comparison and invalidation, and encourages the superman syndrome”. Much better to have a procedural approach that identifies major personal wins and encourages attests when appropriate, to punctuate progress.)


The ethics consultant looks with the pc at the reality of the pc’s life and helps him to decide on a more pro-survival course. To “get ethics in” on one’s life means as much as creating the order necessary to attain a postulated goal. This is best done after an auditing cycle when the pc’s charge is gone and his confront on life has increased. It may have to be done before an auditing cycle when the pc has such aggravating life difficulties that he can’t get auditing, because he is kept so tied up by them.

A lot of the public protest against scientology was connected with the harsh treatments of “scientology ethics” customary in the CofS. It was, for example, enforced that pcs or students “disconnect” from their friends, spouses or parents, because the “ethics officer” considered them “antagonistic to scientology”. But distilled out of the whole subject are some valuable ideas about how to handle the conditions of life more effectively. The “Volunteer Minister’s Handbook” contains a section on this and it should be studied, as often specific assistance with handling life is necessary, for some pc’s, in order to allow lasting case changes to occur from their auditing [17].

2.The Language Of The E-Meter


The E-meter (electropsychometer) is essentially a Wheatstone bridge. Much as it’s a simple measuring device in principle, the actual building of it demands some skill - evidenced by the fact that there has been a sequence of seven models from the time it was first used (1953) until today, each being an improvement compared to the previous one. When you include the ones developed and produced outside the CofS - often of considerably better quality - they add up to about a dozen.
The E-meter isn’t influenced by the sweat on the pc’s hands but by the electrical resistance of mental masses around the pc. This is how it works: a battery inside it sends a very low voltage current (9 Volts) through a wire which is clipped to an ordinary tin can the pc holds in one hand. The current runs around his body and is picked up again by a tin can the pc holds in his other hand, and led off back into the negative pole of the battery inside the meter. Only 2 Volts actually arrive at the pc.

As the current “runs around the pc’s body” it encounters a certain resistance due to the physical conditions of the body. As well it encounters the mental masses produced by the pc in the effort to not look at the terrible things in the engram. These masses add to the body resistance and make the needle rise on the dial. The needle goes to the left. In order to keep the needle on the “set”-position on the dial, the auditor would have to move it to the right. To do so, he turns a knob on the face of the meter clockwise . This way he “opens the throttle” and allows more current to flow out in order to overcome the increased resistance. This knob is called the Tone Arm (TA), indicating the “tone”, the mental tenseness or relaxedness, of the pc. It has a scale around it and a pointer towards this scale. Therefore, when the pc starts encountering an engram, the needle rises” to the left on its scale. The TA “rises” to the right on it’s scale, turned by the auditor in order to compensate for the rising of the needle.

When the pc has duplicated some part of the engram and managed to look at it as it is, his tension immediately relaxes. What he can “have”, he won’t resist any more. Therefore the electrical resistance of his “mental defense shield” lessens, too, the needle falls to the right on the dial and the auditor has to adjust the Tone Arm to put the needle back on set. This is called a TA blowdown or BD.

The amount of charge “blown” can be told by the difference between the two positions of the TA. At session start the TA pointed at the 2.5 mark on the scale around it. At peak point, when the pc’s resistance at looking at the engram was the highest, the TA had gone up to 4.6. Then, after the pc managed to look at and have that particular part of the engram’s content, the TA shot down to 3.1. So the total charge blown at this point is the difference between 4.6 and 3.1, which is 1.5. As only part of the engram was found, the auditor sends the pc through his recall again and again. Everytime the TA will go up and come down in the manner described. At the end of the session, when the pc has seen and re-experienced the engramic incident in all detail and has nothing left he couldn’t easily have, the TA will not move anymore. The process has gone flat. No further restimulation is possible concerning this engram; it has erased. Now the auditor adds up the individual downward motions of the Tone Arm and divides it by the number of session hours to get the average. Five units TA motion per hour - the TA-Action or TAA - would be quite effective and acceptable. The more the better. The correct TAA-value per session is brought about by the auditor keeping the needle on the set”-mark as much as he can. This means that he has to compensate each needle motion to the left or right by adjusting the Tone Arm accordingly. When he does not do this, big reads the pc may have will appear only on the needle dial and not count on the TA-motion . Which makes the session look as if there had been very little TAA only. (See E-Meter Drill 6.)

This figure of “TAA per hour” is a valuable indicator for the progress the pc is making. When there is no TA action, the auditing process or even the program have to be changed because they are obviously inefficient.

Reading the E-meter properly takes quite a lot of skill and experience. Therefore a lot of emphasis in auditor training is put on the “E-Meter Drills”. To the beginner the needle seems but a madly wiggling thingamajig; to the expert each needle motion allows exact conclusions regarding the flow of the pc’s attention. The meter does not tell the auditor what picture the pc sees; it does tell him, though, when the pc is approaching a “hot area”, when he is backing off from it, when he is right in it blowing it to pieces, and also when there is no charge left on an item and the auditing action is complete. The meter allows the auditor to steer the pc’s attention exactly, and therefore makes for efficient and intensive session work.

Auditing happens between two thetans: the auditor and the pc. It does not happen between the auditor and his E-Meter. The auditor observes the pc’s indicators, such as his fluctuations on the tone scale, his delay in responding or answering a question (comm lag), his blushing or blanching, smiling or crying, his change from brightness to dullness and back. As well he observes the needle reactions on the meter. It gives him an additional indicator. This is because some charge may be so minute that you, as the auditor, won’t be able to tell from the pc’s face if there was a reaction to your question or not. But on the meter you get a small Fall (sF) and now you know there is charge on the process. The meter cannot replace the live ARC between auditor and pc, but it can add valuable information without which the process may come to a standstill or the session go off the rails. The meter is a steering device. That’s its whole purpose.


A read means: a charged item was located and the charge reduced. How does charge come about’? By the pc wishing to know something and not knowing it. Basically because he has postulated that he won’t know it or that he can’t confront it. The harder the pc wants to know and the more difficult it is for him to find out, the more charge there will be. Consequently the reduction of charge sets in when the pc moves off from the point of not-know towards being willing to know.

Not knowing something one desires to know creates tension such as in the case of reading a thriller or wondering what one is going to get for Christmas. Finding out and knowing brings relief. Anytime the pc (or any person) experiences relief there will be a big read. For a little bit of relief only, there will be a small read. It all depends on the importance the pc puts on the item in the first place and on the amount of engram content he can confront at a time.

These are the most common reads:

Small Fall (sF): The needle moves 0.6 to 1,5 cm to the right.

Fall (F): 1.5 to 3 cm.

Long Fall (LF): 3 to 4.5 cm.

Long Fall Blowdown (LFBD): When the needle does a Long Fall and stays on the right hand side of the dial, the auditor must move the TA to the left in order to bring the needle back up to “set”. This way the TA “blows down”.

Tick (T): A Tick is smaller than a sF. Usually it is not taken up as it is a sign of there not being enough charge to deal with the item successfully. It does not count as a read, strictly speaking, but just as a hint to a possible read. One pokes about a little in this particular area, but when there is not more than another tick or two, one should leave it alone.

Dirty Needle (D.N.): It looks like many little ticks going left and right in an irregular fashion. It signifies that something goes on “down below” which has not been voiced yet.

(References: “The Book of E-Meter Drills”, “E-Meter Essentials”, “Introduction to the E-Meter”, by L.Ron Hubbard.)


Your E-Meter’s language is simple: it can say either “yes” or “no”. You ask a question and get a read: that means “yes”. You get no read: that means “no”. The pc says something; it reads: “yes”. It doesn’t read: “no”. (See C/S-Series 24.)

The read confirms the auditor’s question or the pc’s origination as true. Why? - Because an as-isness occurs, however small it may be. “Truth is the exact consideration; the exact time, place, form, and event. Thus we see that the discovery of truth would bring about an As-isness by actual experiment. “ (From Axiom 38. The “actual experiment” is the session itself.)

Any partial as-isness reduces some of the charge, so you have less electrical resistance, so you get a read.

“Do you have a problem?” plus read: He has a problem. (Meter confirms the question.)
“Do you have a problem?”, no read: He doesn’t have one.
“Do you have a problem?”, no read. Pc says, “No, I don’t think so”, plus read: He doesn’t have one. (Meter confirms pc’s answer.)

Pc says at session start, “I feel great today”, plus read: He had a release, but there is some charge connected with it. Find out about the release and acknowledge it. If it F/N’s, great, leave it at that. If not, the read means there is bank accessible connected with it that should be dealt with while it is restimulated, to consolidate the win. Hence one should “rehab” the release part. (See the section on “Rehabilitation” further down in the text.)

Pc says at session start, “Last night I had a terrible dream”, with no read. So there is no charge . Acknowledge politely, but do not take it up. Go into the process you have a C/S-instruction for.


“An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor “ “By major thought is meant the complete thought being expressed in words by the auditor “ (HCOB May 25, 1962)

Precise as these definitions are, they still lead to confusion on the side of the auditor with the result of charge being stirred up and left on the case of the pc.

When is the instant read to occur? At the end of the last syllable uttered by the auditor or at the end of the major thought? Are we talking about auditing as a mest universe phenomenon or a theta phenomenon? If we were to say that the read has to occur at the moment the last soundwave has left the auditor’s mouth we would be talking about a mest universe phenomenon. But auditing is an ARC game, not a mest game! It has to do with attention and intention, with the auditing comm-cycle (Tech Dict.). Which means that the pc’s attention and interest count. not the sound waves of the auditor. The pc’s in-session-ness is the senior factor. When the pc is on the line to his bank for one or even five seconds and then has a read and then originates an answer with read and interest and corresponding indicators, are you going to drop it because “it occurred too late”? He was on the line to his bank, he was on the major thought voiced in words by the auditor, he was in session on it, he found something which read and he was interested in talking about it, so there was truth, there was a partial as-isness - so of course you take it up! - If not you will have stirred up charge and left it unhandled, and very soon you will get a dirty needle, a rising TA, a stuck needle and all the other things no auditor really likes.

You have to get the pc to put a commline over to his bank, and therefore you must allow a communication lag - as long as the pc’s attention is on the command! Only acute observation can help you through this. Four situations are possible: 1. Pc didn’t pay attention when you gave the command and thought of something else anyway: prior read. 2. Pc got the command, has no interest, there is no read; no button was pressed at all. The pc’s mind wanders off to something else and that reads: latent read. 3. Pc got the command, introverts, looks around in his mind, commlags, then gives a reading answer which makes sense regarding the command: instant read. 4. Auditor gives command, gets a read immediately, pc hesitates a moment, then gives a sensible and reading answer: the absolute model of an instant read! (See C/S-Series 24.)

Naturally, when you do a rapid assessment by instant read (i.e when you rattle off the questions on a previously prepared list), you take the read that occurs the moment you have finished speaking. (See E-Meter Drill 24.) This, however, works only when you have excellent duplication and understanding on the part of the pc! In order to live through a rapid assessment, the pc must have a conceptual understanding of what the auditor says. If not, you get the phenomena going along with misunderstood words, such as dirty needles, pc’s face going grey, and other nasty things.

It takes a very well grooved in pc for you to just say: “Please lean back for a moment; I’m doing this assessment. You don’t have to say anything whilst I’m doing it.” And then it goes pakata-pakata-pakata (as Hubbard would say): there’s your assessment shooting off and there are your reads. - It’s true that the assessment goes “right to the pcs bank “ (Tech Dict . ), but the bank doesn’t speak English ! So of course it’s a conceptual thing. If the pc has no concept of what you are talking about, there will be no reads. If the thetan (pc) didn’t have to be involved during the assessment one should be able to do an assessment in a foreign language and still get reads. But try to assess an L1C (List 1C, a repair list) in English on a Spaniard and you’ll see that it won’t work! - So it only goes “straight to the pc’s bank”, IF the thetan acts as a communicator and opens the door to the bank. No magic involved, only the application of the communication formula.


The F/N is the most difficult needle characteristic of them all. This is because it comes in so many different forms and sizes. “Floating Needle: the idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial without any patterns or reactions in it. (. . .) It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. (. . .) It ceases to register on the pcs bank. It just idly floats about(. . .) “ (Tech Dict.).
Many beginning auditors think that an F/N ought to be perfectly symmetrical around the center of the dial, and at least as wide as a Fall. However, this is not implied by the definition given above. It may be a rhythmical motion to the right, like three large right-hand swings with smaller left-hand swings in between. It may just be one swing either side and not even symmetrical. It may be dialwide and of short duration, or only as wide as a third of the dial and last for minutes. Or any of the above combinations. - On a high TA, when you are battling away to get the TA down, it may not be more than the momentary easing up of a tight needle, with a corresponding brightening up of the pc. (See the chapter on “High TA” further down.) Some people really have trouble telling the difference between a sequence of sF’s or F’s, and an F/N. -The best way to tell: look at the pc! If the pc were not released the needle wouldn’t float. So it’s not just the meter that shows an F/N, the pc does, too!

The F/N, by the way, is the only meter read which is indicated by the auditor to the pc. Doing so, he acknowledges the release the pc has experienced. One has to be careful not to indicate the F/N too early as that may interrupt the pc’s cognition and make the F/N cease prematurely.

How does an F/N come to be? At the moment you give the auditing command the pc connects up with a ridge and a small as-isness occurs; you get a read. From this moment on the attention of the pc is on the GPM/ridge/engram/secondary/lock/ incident/picture until he has as-ised (blown) it fully. With an engram, this is called erasure; with a lock, it’s a key-out. At this moment it goes ‘pop” and the compulsive commline to the terminal/item breaks. The pc has no more attention on the thing. And that is the moment the needle floats! Its importance is that it indicates when to stop, i.e when the particular auditing cycle is complete . When it’s a big release it will keep on floating for a while . When the pc is in the middle of a series of processes, though, which all deal with the same area of charge (e.g. “the 2nd dynamic”), then his F/N will not last long. It will stop as soon as the next ridge has attracted the pc’s attention.

In detail: He has had attention on one particular bit of bank in this area; he has blown that, F/N. Now he is drawn back into the area by the next bit of bank. The F/N stops. You give the next command, get a read, work it over, F/N; next command, read, work it over, F/N, etc., till the whole area is discharged and the pc has a big release and a large F/N and VVGIs.

One may observe that there is a correspondence between the amount of TAA a process had, and the size and the duration of the final F/N. They seem to be in direct proportion with each other. So when you have run an auditing question which had a sF, and the pc has as-ised the charge rather briefly with no more than another sF, you can’t expect to get a huge F/N. Don’t try to get one - you’ll end up in a stupid overrun! On the other hand, after a 2-hour auditing action on “my schoolteacher” with 22 divisions of TA-Action, you will see a big and lasting F/N as part of the EP.

F/Ns are usually “indicated” to the pc, which means one tells him that he just has one . This is a way of acknowledging (TR-2) that an auditing cycle has been completed, that a release was attained. The disadvantage of this procedure is that it may make the pc dependent on his F/Ns! In the end he will run the process only in order to get his F/N. Or he accepts the indication of an F/N (in case of an auditor error) without the feeling of having completed anything. In either case the pc is not properly in session. Hence it is much better to have him experience his F/N a few times until he knows what he should feel like when the auditor says: “I’d like to indicate, your needle is floating”. This way he learns to find certainty in himself and not in the E-meter.


What is a “high TA”? According to the Tech Dictionary it’s a TA above 3.5 on the TA-scale. An F/N - again according to theTech Dict. - must occur between TA 2.0 and 3 .0 to be valid. Years later, in C/S-Series 99, Hubbard revised this and stated that an F/N always is an F/N, no matter how high the TA.

High-TA F/Ns occur whilst you are working on something. Don’t settle for an EP-F/N above 3.5. You may have worked on something, brought the TA down from 5.3 to 4.5 and got an F/N there; small and short perhaps, but an F/N. That’s very good. But you want it down in the EP range below 3.5. This will make a lot of difference to the pc. So do find those last scraps of charge on the respective subject by all means, and end off with an F/N below 3.5. It will make quite a difference to the well-being of the pc.


There is the paradoxical phenomenon of an F/N occurring whilst the pc has very bad indicators (VBIs). How is this possible? Well, the answer is quite easy once you have understood what a read is and what an F/N is.

A read means “something there” (i.e. a mass) .The pc looks at it in auditing. At the end of the process you get an F/N. An F/N means “nothing there where before there was something”. A read is the meter reaction to a somethingness the F/N the meter reaction to a nothingness.

When the pc is totally ARC-broken he is totally out of communication, has totally no reality and no affinity with anything. There is no commline to the bank. Therefore, when you ask such a pc an auditing question, nothing will register. And that’s why you get an F/N. It means “nothing there where there may be something but I’m too hopeless to even look”. -The technical term for this phenomenon is “ARC-Break F/N”.


Some auditors have come to believe that a Dirty Needle (D.N.) can mean one thing only: the pc has a mw/h (missed withhold). Dirty needle = mw/h. That simple. So there is something terrible and nasty the pc is hiding: let’s get it out of him! (See C/S Series 1.) This is as oversimplified as it’s unfair on the pc. It means putting the whole blame for the D.N. on him. But most of the time, in fact, the needle is dirtied by the auditor himself, his bad TR’s! - If you don’t believe it, re-read E-Meter drill 20. It shows you ten ways of dirtying a clean needle by means of a bad comm cycle.

In the final analysis, the equation “D.N. = mw/h” is true, though. Because the auditor’s bad TRs produce a no-comm situation with the pc trying to say something without being listened to! The w/h is actually enforced on the pc. This is covered under “unintentional withhold” in theTech Dictionary. (But never forget: It could be a real nasty withhold, too!)


As long as a thetan cannot have the is-ness of a certain charge it will not read on the meter, but there won’t be an F/N either. The pc is blocking the access to his case. In order to find out what he is doing to hold the charge off his awareness (not-is), you do this little assessment: “On this question, has anything been suppressed/invalidated/not-ised?” And that will read on the meter when there is charge.

Supposing you had a read on one of the three buttons, e.g. on “suppressed”, you do not ask: “What has been suppressed?”, because you would go off the actual auditing question. Instead you keep insisting on the question you have started with. You could tell the pc what’s going on, by saying: “I’d like to indicate to you that something was suppressed on the question ‘Do you have a problem?’ What problem is that?” And now he will find one. (It could of course be a “false read” see the next section.)

When you do not get a read on the initial question nor on the three buttons, you can be sure that there is no charge present. Actually, there ought to be an F/N now. If this is not the case, it is wise to tell the pc that there is no charge indeed. This makes him relax and then there will be an F/N for sure. An auditor who is a real craftsman would only allow two possibilities with regard to an auditing question: a read or an F/N. To leave a question open, i.e. with no read and no F/N, would not even cross his mind.

The explanation for this phenomenon is given in Axiom 11. The buttons suppress, invalidate and not-is relate to the conditions of existence of alter-isness and not-isness.

In HCOB “Rudiments, Definitions and Patter” (Tech Vol.XI) only one button (“suppress”) is mentioned. But, according to this Axiom, it is perfectly all right to use three.


You ask a question like: “Do you have a problem?” and get a read. The pc says: “No, not really” and has a read on that, too. That is a “false read”, according to the hallowed rule which says: if there is any doubt, the answer of the pc is right. There was a read all right, but it did not relate to what you have asked. It’s on something else - after all, there was an energy which pushed the needle over. The energy didn’t come from the thing you asked for; so where did it come from? If we exclude things like body motion and pc sighing or coughing right at that moment, then it must have come from the bank. So what button was pushed that caused the read? Simple: being asked such a question at all. “How dare you . . . !” That’s the button.

Therefore a false read is the pc’s protest against what you are asking him. And that’s why you handle a false read with the question: “Did anyone say you had a problem when you didn’t have one? (read)” . - Pc: “Yes (read), my mother always told me I was looking so confused when I wasn’t confused at all ! (read)”. So the pc felt evaluated for or invalidated, and he was protesting it then just as he is protesting it now. What you are really running here is a chain of protests about inval/eval. Get all of the incident, when/where/what happened exactly; and then: “Is there an earlier similar time someone said you had a problem when you didn’t have one?” At the end of the chain you’ll get a keyout and F/N plus VGIs.


When you pick up an item or a question, it must of course have read. Either on the question itself, or on checking the three buttons mentioned above. One never takes up unreading questions and items as there is the danger that the pc starts imagining things or gets pushed into his bank . The read on the question or the item is the start of a cycle of action, the process its continuation, the F/N or the EP its end. You must end everything you have started, because if you don’t, if you work on something over an incomplete cycle of action, there will be over-restimation and the pc will feel overwhelmed.

As one asks an auditing question, one has to make sure that the read occurs not only on the question, but on the answer as well! Failing to do this may result in your running an unreading item the one mentioned by the pc - although there was a read on the actual question. Example: “Have you committed an overt?” (F). Pc: “Recently, when I took a walk in the park, I threw an empty cigarette pack on the lawn instead of putting it in the nearest rubbish bin” (x, i.e. no read). If the auditor were to take this up, had the pc tell all about it and then went earlier-similar on it, he would totally audit past the thing which actually caused the read. He would have taken up an unreading item - the one offered by the pc. And soon the usual trouble would follow: needle tightening up, TA rising, pc becoming disinterested, chain not coming to an end. Incomplete cycle of action. Very embarrassing!

The correct action in this case would have been to ask the pc: “Is there perhaps another overt?” (Again the F). “Well,” says the pc, “When I drove my father’s car the other day, I bumped against the garage door and didn’t tell my father it was me who made the dent” (sF). That is the answer the auditor should take up. The read on the answer was smaller than the read on the question, yes, but that does not matter. That is merely a matter of the pc’s confront of his overt. The important thing is that there was a read.

The lesson to be learned here: the read on the auditor’s question must be echoed by the read on the pc’s answer. When this happens one can be certain that the cycle of action of this particular auditing process can be taken to its proper end. (See C/S-Series 89 in Vol.X.)


It is the purpose of auditing to re-establish the pc’s certainty of self. “Certainty in all three universes must be regained, for certainty, not data, is knowledge” (Factor 28) . The only reason, then, why a person would want auditing, is his or her lack of certainty with respect to some areas in one of the three universes. To coax him into being more certain, the auditor indicates to the pc that there is charge on his origination or the item in question. This acts as a special kind of TR-2 (acknowledgment). This confirms what the pc has felt and thereby gradually increases his certainty.

Examples: Pc: “I always had a problem with my uncle”. - Read. (Pc isn’t quite sure if this is important.) -Auditor: “I’d like to indicate, there IS charge on this problem!” - Pc (certain now): “Well, you know - I actually thought so! This has bothered me for many years.” Etc., etc.

In this case the indication has opened the pc’s “outflow valve” (Itsa-line, Tech Dict.); he feels reassured that it isn’t just an imagined problem but a real one and therefore is immediately in session on it.

Auditor: “Have you committed an overt?” - No read. - “On this question, anything suppressed?” - No read. - Pc says nothing and anxiously waits for the auditor to say something. He doesn’t think there is any overt in particular but doesn’t feel sure enough to say so. After all, life has been so long and one has done so many things which weren’t ok. So who could safely say that he never committed an overt? - Auditor: “I’d like to indicate, there’s no charge on this question”. - Pc (relieved): “Oh - good.” - F/N. In this case there was nothing in the bank, so there was no read. Yet there was attention on the question itself; so there was no F/N, either. The certainty created by the auditor’s indication took the pc’s attention away from the question so that the needle could float.

(The best address for E-meters is “Ability Meters International”, 9 Portland Road, East Grinstead, West-Sussex, RH19 4EB, England.)

3. Preparing The Session


You must make sure that the pc understands the key words which go along with the auditing he receives. Build it up as you go along. This is best done in the courseroom. Later, in session, you verify the pc’s understanding of each word as you come to it, by having him give you examples. Don’t do it all at once.

Here is a list of words which will provide a very good basic education for the pc. Most of them have been covered in Part Two of Volume 1. All figures refer to those within the definitions in the Tech Dictionary. Following them you will not get tangled up with new and unknown words which some other definitions are full of. Please go through the left column first, then throught the right one.

Auditing - 2, 5. Processing - 2, 5.
Auditing Communication Cycle. Thetan - 5, 6, 9.
Theta - 3, 4, 5. Reach and Withdraw.
Mind-1, 2, 3. Body- 1, 5.
Analytical mind- 1, 2, 5. Reactive mind- 1.
Not-isness Aberration- 1, 2.
Engram-1,2,6. Engram bank.
Secondary- 1. Lock - 1, 4.
Valence. Time track.
Misemotion. Somatic. Charge-1, 2, 3, 4.
Chronic charge. Erase.
Key-in. Key-out.
Release - 2, 3, 6. Floating needle.
VGIs. Postulate.
Consideration. Cognition- 1.
As-is. EP.
Overrun - 2, 3, 4. Exteriorisation - 1, 2
Negative gain. Clear- 1-9.
Cleared cannibal. OT- 4, 5.
Knowingness- 1, 2, 3. Knowledge- 1, 2.
Affinity- 1, 2, 3. Reality - 3, 5, 7.
Communication. Understanding- 1, 3.
ARC- 1. ARC-Break.
Problem- 1, 2, 4. Present Time Problem.
Withhold- 1, 2, 4. MissedW/H.
Overt. Invalidation- 1, 3, 4.
Evaluation-1, 2.


The auditor does the pre-session checks to find out if the pc is sessionable, and to adjust his E-meter to the pc.

1) He adjusts the sensitivity by can squeeze.

2) He does a false TA check when the TA is above 3.5. False TA may be due to cold hands, cold feet, tight clothes, dry hands, wrong can grip. Handle accordingly. A real high TA would demand a handling in session and require a change of C/S. That’s why you have to find out if your high TA is real or false.

3) He asks the pc if he is tired or hungry or physically worn out. (Ref.: Auditor’s Code.) If so: handle accordingly. You want the pc’s attention on his case not on his body. Should the pc be unsessionable and you continue nevertheless, you will soon see the needle- and TA-motion tightening up. In the case of an EP, the F/N will be short and narrow or not come at all; the VGIs of the pc will look rather muffled.

4) He asks the pc to take a deep breath and blow it out hard, watches the needle read, and thereby finds out about the pc’s metabolism.

5) The auditor asks the pc if he has taken drugs, medicine or alcohol. - If so, the session cannot be started as the pc has to “dry out” first. Reason: a pc under the influence of drugs, medicine, or alcohol will have bad recall, a sticky needle and very little TA-motion. (HCOB 17 Oct 69: “Drugs, Aspirin, and Tranquilizers”, Tech Vol.XI or [17].)

6) He asks the pc if he feels comfortable. (Chair, temperature, etc.)

7) He asks: “Is there any reason why we shouldn’t start the session now?”

8) All ok: “This is the session!”


E-Meter Drill 5 and 5 RA both say something substantial separately but neither of the two combines it. (See as well “E-Meter Essentials”, section E.) EM-5 says the can squeeze checks the pc’s current state of Havingnes. EM-5 RA says one has to adjust the sensitivity so the needle falls over one third of the dial when the pc squeezes the cans. Neither of the two state clearly how hard one is supposed to squeeze - which has driven some auditors (and pc’s) to despair.

A “light squeeze” may be entirely different when it’s repeated a second or third time from how it was done the first time, so there’s a different size read each time. The answer to the difficulty lies in the definition of Havingness and its application to the can squeeze. “HAVINGNESS, 1. that which permits the experience of mass and pressure”. [2] This means having ARC with a somethingness, a terminal.

As the pc squeezes the cans he demonstrates by the drop of the needle how far he is capable of experiencing the mass and pressure of the cans on his hands. Therefore the pc should squeeze as hard as he can - slowly and steadily, yes, but as hard as he can. When one has him squeeze the cans two or three times, one keeps at least one variable stable: his pressure. -The other variable one adjusts as required, by setting the sensitivity knob to a needle drop of 1/3 on the dial.

The can squeeze does not measure the muscular strength of the pc, but his Havingness. This is easily observable . When the pc squeezes the cans the needle will move gradually to the right and then stop, although the pc may still be increasing the power of his squeeze! So his muscular strength does not push the needle further over than his Havingness allows. The reverse effect one can observe when the pc’s Havingness has increased after a session; usually the sensitivity could now be adjusted lower than before. (Try it out and see!) This is surely not because the pc’s muscle power would have increased within a session of one and a half hours! - It’s his ability to experience mass and pressure which has increased.

Why does one measure Havingness at all? - Because one has to adjust the meter (sensitivity knob) so it reads on the masses in the case of the pc. This adjustment is conveniently done by measuring the pc’s ability to experience the masses of the cans.

A pc whose Havingness is low, will feel the mass of the cans to a certain extent as he squeezes them, but not sufficiently to make the meter read on a sensitivity setting of e.g. 2. Accordingly he will not experience the masses of the bank sufficiently, given the same sensitivity setting, as to make the needle register. Therefore, to get reads, one has to amplify the signals of the bank electronically by turning up the sensitivity knob. This of course does not increase the Havingness of the pc; it increases the signal strength which then makes reads possible. Which means that this particular pc win have reads as soon as his sensitivity is set at 7, for example.


How come you get a read on the metabolism test (breath test)’? (See point 3 on the pre-session checklist.) To understand this you need to know three facts:

Firstly: the current runs from the battery in the E-meter through the lead into one can, through the body into the other can, and back through the other lead, to the battery. The body has a mass which the current has to overcome in order to get from one can to the other.

Secondly: the digestive system turns the food you eat into carbohydrates (and other things). These are taken to the cells of the muscles and other organs through the blood stream. The lungs take up oxygen from the air. The oxygen is picked up in the blood stream, too, and taken to the cells in the body. The carbohydrates are burnt up by the oxygen in the cells to generate energy. As usual, when something gets burnt up heat is generated. This is how the body stays warm. And this is what’s called “metabolism”.

Thirdly: a warm human body has a lower resistance than a cold one.

Now this is what happens when you check for metabolism: When you breathe in deeply, hold the air for a moment, and then breathe out vigorously, there will be a steep increase of oxygen in the blood stream. Naturally, the rate of combustion will increase, too. (As anyone knows who has ever blown into the open flames of a fire . ) Now of course the body temperature rises (breathe hard ten times and you’ll see) and the body resistance against electrical current is lowered. This decrease of resistance is expressed in the meter read: the electrical resistance of the body drops, which makes the needle fall and the TA come down - if only in degrees.

But: the combustion rate will only increase if there is actual oxygen entering the blood stream with actual carbohydrates there and ready to get burnt up. So if you don’t get a read it may mean that the pc didn’t eat right, that he didn’t sleep right, or that he didn’t breathe right. Or it may mean that there is something wrong with his system, and the food doesn’t get turned into energy.

In case of high TA you may have a hard time getting a read on the metabolism test. Do a false TA check to make sure it’s nothing mechanical. (Pc too cold, etc.) If it is a real high TA caused by charge, you will find quite often that it is this charge which suppresses the metabolism read. Don’t worry about it; go in session anyway, and handle the charge - provided the pc has eaten and slept well. The main stable datum here is the Auditor’s Code, points 5 and 6. If that is in, the auditor may take the pc in session. However, he must inform the pc about a weak metabolism read before he starts, because should it turn out that the needle does not read well in session (in the usual way for this pc), then the auditor can simply end the session with a short explanation of the matter and the pc will understand the situation.


The preparations are all done now. The auditor starts the session with “This is the session!”. If there is no F/N he flies as many rudiments as needed in order to have a stable F/N. Reason: you want the pc’s attention fully on the major process which is to be done in this session according to the C/S. One doesn’t go into a major action over out-ruds (see C/S-Series 1).

The necessary ruds and then the major process for this session are taken to F/N and EP. Then the auditor asks: “Is there anything you’d like to say or ask before we end the session?” This provides an opportunity for the pc to look back over the session and to originate on various aspects of it. Should he have questions beyond the immediate scope of the session, the auditor notes them down, acknowledges their importance and says that they will be taken up after the session . Then he gives his “End of session!”

In either case the pc should have an F/N here. It means that the pc has ended the session for himself. At the time of the EP he had an F/N on the process, now he has one on the end of the session. There is a significant difference between the two. When there is no F/N after “say/ask?”, you know that there is something wrong. This is an important information for the C/S.

Should anything unexpected happen which the auditor can’t handle on the spot, he explains to the pc that he has to end the session in order to get a technical consultation, and turns the folder in to the C/S.

When the pc has blown a lot of charge (as seen by plenty of TA action) he may feel an actual lack of mass and feel a bit woozy in the head. His F/N may be smaller than you would expect in view of the big release he has. In this case you must replace the bank masses by the actual masses of the mest environment and make him repeatedly touch things or look at things or spot things in the room. (Each of these would be one process in itself. Do not give more than a dozen commands because it will turn the orientation assist into an objective auditing process.) The pc will soon feel oriented again - a dozen commands is enough - and his F/N has a wider swing now. He has lost reactively created dimension points in the bank because the engram has gone; he has replaced them by analytically created ones. Now you can safely give your “End of Session!”

(See HCOB 11 Aug 1978 II, “Model Session”, Tech Vol.XI.)


When the auditor has finished the session, he must do his session admin. This must be done properly as the “admin” of the session (an auditor slang term) communicates the session content to the C/S. The C/S should be able to understand the run of the session without having to send for the auditor and ask him about particulars. A session consists of three different types of particles. They are stapled together and put into the folder, in this sequence: the worksheets at the bottom, next the Auditor Report Form, the C/S-sheet on the top.

1. The Worksheets; They are notes of the session actions, usually written in two columns. What must be written in them is: a) Each auditor command, each reading origination of the pc (and others, too, when you can write fast enough) . b)The pc’s change of indicators, such as position on the tone scale and facial expression. c) The time goes on the left-hand margin of the column. d) The reads and any change of TA position go on the right hand margin beside the exact words of the pc that caused the read. e) F/Ns go in the middle of the column and are circled. To give the worksheets a clear appearance, it is recommended that auditor commands are underlined and auditor observations are put in brackets; pc origination’s stay as they are. This way the C/S can see at one glance what was said by whom and how the process ran.

2. The Auditor Report Form. It has the same function as the contents table of a book. The C/S should be able to look over the whole session as it is summarized on one or two pages. There are three columns, from left to right: 1. what process was done, 2. time and TA position at end of process, 3. EP or not plus auditor’s observations. The sensitivity is marked only once (in column 2) unless it changes during the session. - Pc’s name auditor’s name, date, TA-range, total TA-action and session time should be noted at the top, like “pc Joe, auditor Fred. 6.8.1988, TA-range between 2.3 and 4.1; total TAA 16.4; session time: 2:35 (2 hours 35 minutes), previous session time total: 16:12, new total: 18:47”.

The ARF should reveal at one glance what decisions the auditor took during the session. Column 1:What did he do? Column 2 and 3: What was the result? Next line down, column 1: How did he carry on? Column 2 and 3: What was the result of that? And so on.

3. The C/S-sheet. Here the auditor expresses his thoughts and comments about the session and draws the attention of the C/S to aspects not easily to be seen from the worksheets, like: “Today it didn’t run quite as smoothly as usual, needle was a bit tighter all in all, less flowy”.

Organizationally speaking, the auditor is a junior to the C/S. The C/S is his senior. A junior should present solutions to his senior. He should not present problems. Therefore it is up to the auditor to suggest the instructions for the next session. It is looked at and considered ok or not ok by the C/S.

The auditor’s comment (in red) presents the situation and gives all data. The auditor’s C/S (in blue) presents a solution. This solution must logically evolve out of the data given, and be in full alignment with the tech. Example:

“No F/N at session end. High TA.” (Situation, red.)

“On p.12 there was a BD and VGIs but no F/N. I thought if I carry on the pc may get a cognition. So I carried on but his indicators got worse and worse and the TA started rising. - I had to end session as it became too late to carry on.” (Data, red.)

“Next C/S: (Solution, blue.)
1) In your last session, did you go past an EP? (Rehabilitate to EP.)
2) Next step on the program.”

- Signature (red)

This procedure is an excellent way to get an auditor to start thinking like a C/S. It is the basis of all C/S-training. (References: C/S Series No.25; definition of “CSW” in the Mgmt. Dictionary.)

4. The Folder Summary. The actual folder is just a piece of cardboard folded in half, big enough to accommodate A4 or foolscap size paper (1 to 3 above). Inside its front cover a few sheets of blank paper are stapled. They are the contents table of the whole folder. Usually it is done in two columns. After each session the auditor makes a short note in it about the date of the session, the time it took, the actions done and their result and if there was an F/N at EoS (End of Session) or not. It serves as a brief orientation for the C/S or auditor when he has to study the entire folder of a pc. From the entries in the Folder Summary the C/S can pick out the dates of the sessions he wants to look at in particular.

When the folder becomes too fat, a second one is started. The Folder Summary is transferred to the new folder so that a complete view over all case actions this pc had, is always possible.

This system was developed in order to keep an accurate and easily reviewed record of a pc’s auditing and case progress, and is particularly useful if problems develop and one has to search for past auditing errors, or if a new auditor or C/S is taking over.

Session admin becomes very important when one does long actions extending over many sessions. When one looks back over a series of sessions one must always be able to clearly see what made one decide to do a certain C/S step. What seems logical at the moment it’s written down may appear perfect nonsense when looked at three weeks later. This is bad enough for oneself trying to figure out why one did what one did when one did it; it is even worse for another (the C/S), particularly when he has to handle a great number of cases or just temporarily fills in, because the usual C/S takes a holiday.

You can make life easy for your C/S when you keep good admin. He will at a glance be able to see the good and the bad points in your sessions; he will see immediately which of your actions was right and which was wrong. It is your admin which forms the basis of the decisions your C/S will make on the case, and for the corrections he may possibly give you.
Remember: the C/S can only work from the data you give him! So anything which the pc or his friends tell you between sessions: don’t discuss it and don’t simply dismiss it either. Make a note of it ! And put it into the folder.

You do the auditing and the routine C/Sing. The C/S does the special C/Sing - like when you get stuck or when a new step on the program gets started.

(Reference for session admin: see Auditor Admin Series in Vol. IX. Do as well pay attention to the diagrams in the appendix.)

4. Introduction To The
Various Techniques

Looking at the great number and variety of scientology and dianetic processes, one may get rather confused. Yet below the apparent complexity one actually finds no more than five different techniques, and all auditing programs consist of one or a combination of them. They are all derived from the procedures described in “Dianetics”. If one were to reduce their interwoven-ness by sorting them into separate techniques and added the E-meter, one would get the auditing methods of modern scientology, i.e. of the time after 1968.

The techniques gradiently require increasing confront by the pc - and by the auditor. They are listed below in the sequence from light to demanding. Using the same question (e.g.: “Do you have a problem?”) with each technique would cause different things, of increasing intensity, to happen between the pc and his bank. Which gradient one chooses, depends on the pc’s abilities alone. (The following chapters will elaborate this.)

Two-Way Communication (2WC): 2WC is the easiest on the pc but doesn’t reach very deep. A (reading) question is looked at loosely from all sorts of angles; the auditor keeps repeating the question in so many different ways, the pc answers; finally it will F/N. The auditor just makes sure that the pc doesn’t drift off the subject, but there is no push to get anywhere in particular as long as one stays within the logical limits of the subject. The auditor may pick up large reads and follow them up until they have flattened out. The whole objective is to give the pc a chance to voice all his considerations regarding the subject in question, until he has no more compulsively fixated attention on it.

Repetitive Technique: In repetitive technique the identical command is repeated over and over again (in the fashion drilled in TR-3). This allows the pc to pick and choose from his track as suits his confront ability best. He takes what comes easily. This technique runs deeper than 2WC but still comparatively shallow. It is applied in prepchecks. Grades processes and rehabilitation’s. (See appropriate sections.)

Narrative: This style was already talked about at length in the chapter on Postulate Auditing. In contrast to repetitive technique, where the pc is free to tell as much about the incident as he likes, the narrative style would require him to tell the whole incident in detail.

Running Chains: Running chains is more demanding in so far as the pc is asked to arrange incidents in a chronological sequence on the timetrack. This is not difficult as long as it is done on the level of locks; it gets harder with secondaries and engrams. This technique is applied in running the “earlier similar chains” of rudiments, repair lists or engrams (see appropriate sections).

As a general note it should be mentioned that running chains makes the pc believe that his incidents were arranged on his timetrack in a linear fashion. This is a dangerous illusion! The pc does not “go down the time track” when he is running a recall process. He is in present time, and his case is in present time, too! His case exists to the extent that the pc is creating it under the direction of the auditor. He does not drag it along like a long streamer. (Except for his “chronic case” which is permanently in restimulation.) And of course, the time track does exist - but as an imagined thing only! Not for real! The time track is the result of an agreement one has with oneself and others about what was. Without this agreement it would not exist (Axiom 3).

Techniques for Finding a Single Item: To these count “Dating and Locating” and “Listing and Nulling”.

a) Dating and Locating (D/L): In searching for the beginning of a particular incident, the auditor wants the pc to find the exact date down to the second and the exact distance down to the millimeter. (The bank does contain data with this degree of precision!) D/L demands a high confront level from the pc because of its minute exactness. (See the appropriate section.)

b) Listing and Nulling (L&N): L&N is the top gradient as it asks for one single item only. The auditor asks a question which is formulated to allow only one item as the correct answer; pc searches around in his mind and makes a list of items until he comes up with the item and has F/N VGIs. Example: “What ice cream do you like best?” (Question reads.) Pc: “Hm - strawberry, I guess.” Auditor: “Keep on looking!” Pc: “Vanilla banana - well, in fact. it’s chocolate ! ! “ (Some of these items may have read, others not. The last one, however, has a LFBD and an F/N, the pc is VGIs.) Auditor: “I’d like to indicate to you, chocolate is the correct item. “You couldn’t do this with an overcharged pc who has twenty different life areas in restimulation. This is the reason why L&N appears only in Grade III, IV, and Va, after the case has cooled off. It is possible, though, to use it towards the end of a Life Repair, depending on the confront level of the pc and the auditor’s skill.

All of these techniques are a way for the pc to find out precisely what is in his bank, to make him find the object or person or event or postulate of which he was so far unconscious. This is because at a certain point of non-confront or overwhelm he had pushed it out of his consciousness. Having found it, he will have a cognition and recognize that “it is a . . .”, hence the term itsa. Getting the pc to itsa, to have cognitions, is the essential aim of auditing.

In the following chapters, the auditing processes most commonly used in Life Repairs and in the Solo-Assists (after Clear) will be presented. They appear in the order of increasing difficulty for the auditor: Prepchecks, Repair Lists, Rudiments, Rehabilitation’s, Date/Locate. They demand a comment as the relevant HCOBs do not cover all the questions students usually have. This is not the case for Two-Way Comm, engram running and L&N, as the HCOBs on them speak for themselves. (See the index of Vol.X, XI and XII for references. )

Important Note: To be fully prepared for the following chapters (4.1 - 4.5), to be well acquainted with the fundamentals of theory and procedure, you must have thoroughly studied the chapter on Postulate Auditing! It contains as well comments on the use of 2WC, narrative, running chains and repetitive technique.

4.1 The Prepcheck


The prepcheck could be described as a tool which serves to bring clarity to a confused area of thought, using a rather broad approach. It compares to a scanning searchlight rather than to a surgical laser.

“Prepcheck” means “preparatory check” [2]. The first prepcheck bulletins appear in 1962. The technique was then used for quite different purposes than today. Today’s style was first summarized two years later, in HCOB 14 August 1964, and only fourteen years later brought in its final form (HCOB 7 Sept 1978).

1. The buttons, the item and the prefix: The prepcheck consists of twenty “buttons”, for example “suppressed”, “invalidated”, “careful of”, “suggested” . These buttons are used in relation to a charged reading item found previously, for example during an interview or an earlier session. As this item is called newly with each command, it serves as a ‘ prefix” to the command.

2. Repetitive style auditing: Supposing “apples” were the item, you’d use “apples” as a prefix and ask the pc: “On apples, has anything been suppressed?” The question reads. The pc answers; that as well reads. You acknowledge the answer and keep asking the identical question until the pc runs out of answers, which is a flat point, or until there is an F/N, which is the EP on this particular series of questions on this button . This is called “repetitive style auditing”. Now you take up the next button on the list and proceed in exactly the same way.

3. Flat points and end phenomena: Some buttons will go flat, others will F/N . The pc will have small cognitions here and there and say things like: “Now I see! That’s what it is! I never looked at it this way before!” And so on. He is doing his itsa. After a while, he will come to a big itsa, a big cognition, something that disconnects and releases him from the subject as a whole. He may say: “Now I get it! Gee! That’s the thing on apples-they are FRUIT! That’s what they are! Wow!” And so on. That’s the EP. That’s when you end off.

Some notes on certain details: To increase the pc’s range of answers, clarify all possible interactions with regard to the question. Have the pc demonstrate his understanding to you by asking him to push paperclips and pens around on the table. There are quite a number of combinations: 1. Did apples suppress him? 2. Did he suppress apples? 3. Did he observe others suppressing apples? 4. Did he suppress himself because of apples? 5. Did others suppress him because of apples? 6. Did he suppress others because of apples? 7. Did he observe apples suppressing others? 8. Did apples suppress themselves? 9. Did apples suppress each other? Perhaps there are some more combinations. Of course, you don’t ask the pc these questions one by one, but you do want him to have a good and broad understanding of them.

When you give the auditing question to the pc, each time you pick up a new button, you don’t “check” it or “assess” it on the E-meter. You simply ask the pc in a friendly and interested manner. If there is no read, you do not check supp/inval/not-is. You don’t check a button on a button. Instead you ask the pc for an example concerning the question. Have him invent one if needed to demonstrate his understanding. If it reads now the button is charged, you inform the pc that this is so, and you run it repetitively to a flat point or F/N. If it goes flat by the pc running out of answers, do not continue questioning him in the desperate effort to get an F/N, as it would force the issue - which is never done. There’s no need to push the pc anyway! Should there be any further charge left on any of the buttons, he’ll get it on the next round through. You use as many buttons as needed to get to the EP. A dozen of them may be enough in one case; in another you may have to go through the whole lot, all twenty of them, three times.

And please, don’t run your repeater style like a robot. Encourage the pc to elaborate and go in further when one answer or the other is accompanied by a big read. Permit your pc to make itsa!

The experts amongst the readers will have noticed that the above procedure does not represent the suggestions of the latest HCOB mentioned above. This is because these suggestions do not prove successful, if followed to the letter. Taking each button separately to F/N cog VGIs, as the bulletin demands, simply does not work. It means forcing the pc who has run out of answers, into more answers; it means tight needles and rising TA; it means ignoring that there is such a thing as a flat point in a process. -Therefore this HCOB is “out-tech” (Tech Dict. ), no matter if it was written by Hubbard himself or by another (which unfortunately happened all too often.)


On the Cl.VIII course Hubbard says that you can do a prepcheck on any area of charge. It goes without saying that the more defined an area is, the better it will read and the better your prepcheck will run.

As an example, let us take a pc who mentions a terminal (person, place, thing) or an AESP-item in several places of his interview but only has small reads on it. Added up, they amount to a lot of charge, though. Therefore you decide to do a prepcheck on this terminal or item. The first thing you do in session: ask him what he would call that item just for himself. His name for it. This will pull all the dispersed attention units into one and give you a blowdown. The pc has done an itsa. Now you have a precise target to work on.

Example: pc talks about school here and there in the interview. Lots of sF’s. You ask him: “What’s your word for ‘school”’? Your personal description for it?” - Pc says: “That madhouse!”. laughs, BD. Now you do your prepcheck on “that madhouse”, because this is what the big restimulator behind the actual school was. Why the pc calls it a “madhouse”, exactly where the charge is coming from - whether it is a past-life overwhelm or a present-life suppressive teacher - will be discovered in session.

Which means: even before you start the action of prepchecking you have an item and you know that it is charged . The prepcheck does not serve to find out if an item is charged. It is not an assessment to find out which button is charged the most. Not at all. It offers twenty angles (the 20 buttons) to get at a known charge and blow it. It serves as a tool to “crack” a charged subject.

Two further solutions concerning the above situation, for the professional and more stylish: pc talks about school, teachers, good and bad marks, homework etc. You don’t know what out of all this is the real button. When you are good at Listing & Nulling you could ask: “Who or what would represent school to you?” Answer: “The maths teacher!” This item blows down and F/N’s. Now you can do a prepcheck on it. -And there is yet another L & N approach: “Regarding school, who or what would have these difficulties?” Answer: “A dumb boy!” plus LFBD F/N VGIs . That’s the valence he is stuck in . Prepcheck that . (See the chapter “Listing & Nulling” for further details.)


The EP of a prepcheck is a release, no matter how many buttons it took. In order to go release it takes a number of key-outs. (See Tech Dict. under “Release”.) Some buttons will produce a key-out with a realization and an F/N, others will just go flat. - Neither the realization nor the F/N have to be particularly spectacular. They are on the particular button you have been working on, not on the item as a whole . The final cognition will be big and on the item as such; and the F/N will be wide. That is the EP.

So you don’t have to F/N each button. You run it till there’s no read and no answer left on it. You run it flat. Should it F/N, that’s fine . You carry on, run the remaining buttons to flat or F/N, start again with the first button, go through the lot again and again, till the EP occurs. You just run each button, whether it has F/Ned on the run before or not. If it has already F/Ned it may read again as it has restimulated another lock connected with the subject. Remember, it’s a lock action, and there is no end to the number of locks. (See Tech Dict.: “Reduce” “flat”, “flat by TA”, “flat comm lag”, “flat point”, “flat process” . )

These are the prepcheck buttons (quoted from HCOB 7 September 1978 R, “Modern Repetitive Prepchecking”,Vol.XI, p. 469):

Careful of
Didn’t reveal
Mistake been made
Anxious about
Withdrawn from
Agreed with


Situation: You realize that a lot of charged items in the pc’s life are connected with her 2nd dynamic (sex and family), such as: a) her first husband, b) his parents who own the local shop where she can’t help buying things although she doesn’t like to because of their snide remarks, c) her current husband with whom she shares a company that isn’t doing well because of his sloppynes, d) his parents who she hates but has to put up with as they live together in the same house, e) her lover who runs a company that’s doing business with her husband’s company and whom she therefore has on the phone a lot. (Actual example.)

So what to do? What is the king pin here which would make the whole construction collapse if one pulled it out? Hard to say. This is where a prepcheck comes in handy, done in combination with lock-scanning. As an analogy, the prepcheck functions as a metal detector or Geiger counter. It’s for horizontal action, for sweeping. You search the area; when you get a big read you dig down to the lode. For digging down you use lock-scanning. That’s the vertical action.

If one were to describe prepcheck-procedure in terms of the basic techniques mentioned before, one would get the following steps: one starts out with a 2WC (which in this case was already done in the interview) in order to generally discuss the subject. Then the actual prepcheck follows, based on repetitive technique. During the prepcheck you find a “hot button” and ask the pc to tell you the corresponding incident in the narrative style. To then go down deep and find the basic incident you would use lock-scanning, which relates to the basic technique of running chains.

To continue with the above example: you do a prepcheck “on the 2D”. You run three or four buttons to flat point, all rather uneventful. Next button: “has a mistake been made?” Suddenly pc gets tears in her eyes when she says, yes, both of her marriages were a mistake. Big reads. So here is your area, here you can dig in. Instead of TR-3ing the button you have her tell you how and when this mistake was made. How did she meet the first and later the second husband, how did she get to know them, when exactly did she decide to marry them? You get a postulate like “I just had to have him” . There is a good read on it, yet no relief, no F/N. The beginning, therefore, must be deeper down the track. “First time you made that postulate?” Lockscan to present time. You go through all of her friends and lovers; still no EP. Got to be earlier. Ah! - she just had to have the body she’s in now. A prenatal incident. Lockscan to present time. That still isn’t it . ‘ Earlier?” - ‘Past life?” - Bingo ! - Egypt ! She “had to have” the priest, seduced him, was found out; then they both got ritually executed. But she never as-ised the postulate, so of course she kept going on it! Now that she has as-ised it she laughs, big cognition on the 2D, F/N. (This in the second session; pc never ran past lives before.)

This was definitely not all of the EP yet. There’s more awry on this 2nd dynamic. So you continue your prepcheck down the list of buttons and keep doing the above anytime you get a hot answer. At the end the pc will tell you that her 2nd dynamic looks all different to her, that her past does not have a grip on her any more and that she feels positive about her future. This would be a very nice EP for the prepcheck as such. Additionally you may now clean up all the postulates found, by repeater technique, i.e. in the style of Postulate Auditing.

4.2 The Repair List


A repair list (or correction list) is used when something goes wrong in session. It helps the auditor to find the source of the trouble. (See “Correction List”, Tech.Dict.) It consists of a number of questions which lay down a barrage to shoot anything which may have contributed to the session getting stuck. This may have been due to auditor mistakes, to unexpected maneuvers of the bank, or to so far unknown peculiarities of the pc.

The auditor “assesses the list”, i.e. he reads it line by line from top to bottom in a good questioning tone of voice (“assessment TR-1”) and notes down the reads. During the assessment, the pc does not speak. Only when the auditor takes up a reading question, does the pc talk about it. Most questions are handled earlier-similar style, others demand the assessment of yet another repair list.

About half a dozen repair lists are in use; some of them are of a general nature, others specifically aim at repairing certain auditing rundowns. Since the late seventies, it is quite customary for a professional auditor to whip out one or more repair lists whenever there is a spot of trouble in the session. As the handling of some repair lists demands yet other repair lists, you can imagine what a mess of incomplete cycles is created that way much to the suffering of the pc. Instead of live communication with the pc, the repair list had become the “universal solvent” for the C/S and the auditor.

The attitude is: the pc has a case, or even IS a case, he has no idea of the Tech, he is in fact wholly incapable. This results more often than not in the C/S and the auditor trying to “handle” a case directly, whilst leaving the pc out of the game. Auditing is not done with the pc but for the pc. Under these circumstances the auditing comm cycle cannot go in at all, the needle gets dirty, the TA rises and sticks - time for yet another repair list .

Ten years earlier, in the late sixties, there were no prefabricated solutions. Repair lists did not replace the thinking of the auditor or C/S yet. The review auditor had to study the folder and put his own repair rundown together by working out the right questions for this pc at this time. The whole wisdom of the ClassVIII tapes was brought to bear. When you watched one of the representatives of the “old days” work, it would look like this: He gets his data from the pc folder and maybe from an interview done additionally; then he analyses the structure of the case, writes a thesis of several pages about it and derives the necessary auditing commands from it. He uses no repair list as far as he can avoid it. His viewpoint is: how can I get this thetan in comm with his case so he can handle it? And all it takes him to do it are the simple tools Hubbard mentions in the ClassVIII course: two-way comm, ruds, rehabs, prepchecks, and engram running.

A possible explanation for the increased use of repair lists may be that the CofS underwent such a rapid expansion in the early seventies that there weren’t enough repair specialists of Class VIII rank for each org. To become a ClassVIII auditor one had to be OTIII - a then rarely attained advanced auditing level which made the applicants even more scarce. Repair lists, apparently, were the solution to the problem. Now each Class IV auditor suddenly was in the position to do the repairs for which formerly one would have needed to be a Class VIII Review Auditor. (Note that at that time, in 1971, Hubbard started issuing the C/S-Series in the attempt to communicate ClassVIII knowledge to Class IV C/Ses, or, in different words: in the attempt to water down a knowledge which really belongs to the level of OTIII, to render it harmless enough and digestible, to a non-OT III C/S. - SeeVol.X for the complete C/S-Series.)

The L1C needs mentioning separately because it is quite a helpful tool for the beginning auditor. It is assessed like any other list but the handling of the individual lines needs no particular instruction. They are all taken E/S (earlier similar) to F/N. In other repair lists you find specific handling instructions for each line which makes them more difficult to master.

Here is the procedure: you assess the list on the pc line by line with a good questioning assessment TR-1. In “Method 3” you take up each reading question as you come to it; in “Method 5” you assess the whole list once through and then take up the reads in order of their size. Either way: invite the pc to talk about the reading line, get his itsa and go E/S when there is no F/N. It is important that not only the question itself reads, but also the pc’s answer! When this is not so you may wind up in nowhere-land as you attempt to go earlier/similar: the pc doesn’t recall any earlier incidents and the TA climbs up and up. No completed cycle of action. Why? Because it wasn’t started right to begin with. Very unpleasant for all concerned.

Usually the list is done “on something”, for example on an item which has come up previously in an earlier session or interview. This is called a “prefix”. “On the time you went to school, is there (LlC line)?” - Or: “On Joe, is there . . .?” - Or: “On the second dynamic . . .?” When no special terminal is used as a prefix one usually prefixes with “Recently . . .?” or “In your life . . .?”

It is important that the prefix reads well else your list will be a very joyless affair for both pc and auditor. The prefix should be a terminal (person, place, thing, subject), a timespan or an activity - not an AESP-item. On AESP-items you had best run the underlying engram; on terminals etc. you can run ruds or L1Cs.

The following basic techniques are used in an L1C: a question has read; to start with, the auditor discusses it briefly with the pc (2WC) until an incident is found. Then the pc recalls the incident in full detail (narrative) . When this does not lead to a key-out with F/N one goes E/S ( chains), goes over the earlier incident in the narrative style, goes E/S, etc. Take your time! Reduce the charge on each incident by going over it repeatedly, before going earlier/similar. (Have a look at the procedure diagrams in the appendix.)

And please: do not expect an instant read on the question: “Is there an earlier similar problem?” (Or whatever the L1C-line may be . ) It doesn’t have to read now as it already read when you originally checked the command for charge. And that original read came from the basic on the chain. Now when the L1C-line doesn’t F/N on the first incident the pc told you, is there an E/S? Of course there is, whether it reads or not! You know it when you understand your basics.


A list is continued as long as there is non-confront or compulsive attention on the prefixed item. The EP is cognition on the terminal in question, VGIs, F/N. Of course, each line by itself is taken to F/N, too, but these are only sub-EPs. The final EP is on the whole thing. This may occur after just a few lines or it may require that you take the pc through the whole list a number of times. Sometimes the C/S wants to be dead-certain that there’s no scrap of charge left on the subject in question and orders “an L1C to F/Ning list” . He wants to see an F/N on each line. This is accomplished by first taking up each line which reads straight away and taking it to F/N, and then checking the remaining lines by means of the three buttons (suppressed, invalidated, not-ised) which will either cause a read or an F/N. Otherwise the three buttons are not used on a repair list unless there are no reads at all. (Which raises the question of whether the assessment-TRs of the auditor are any good, or if the C/S perhaps didn’t take the wrong approach to the case. )

(You can find an L1C in Vol. III, p. 203.)

4.3 The Rudiments

“Rudiment, n. 2. A first or elementary principle of any art or science; as, the tenents of geometry.” -Webster’s Student Dictionary, 1943.

With respect to auditing, the “elementary principles” of the definition above are contained in the six session rudiments: ARC break (ARCX), problem, missed withhold, overt, evaluation and invalidation. (For the theory of rudiments, see Volume 1, Part Two.)

When you, as the auditor. begin a session, you ideally would like to see an F/N. It means that the pc’s attention is on nothing in particular; he is not distracted by anything and is ready to pay attention to the auditing command you are going to give him. His “rudiments are in”. In contrast to this, anyone who is sad, has a problem, a bad conscience from having done something he considers naughty, feels criticized or degraded, won’t be any good at concentrating on the task ahead - such as an auditing process, for example. For this reason you have “to put the ruds in on the pc”. The difficulties of life made the pc’s “ruds go out”; now you “put them in”. The usual C/S-instructions for this are: “Fly a rud if no F/N at session start”, or: “Fly six ruds to F/N”. In the former case the ruds are gone through in sequence and the first reading one is taken to F/N. Then one goes on to the main process for this session. In the latter case all ruds are repeatedly gone through in sequence till each one has an F/N. Only then does one go on to the main process. A further possibility would be to assess all six rudiments and handle them in the sequence of their chargedness.

Taking rudiments to F/N handles locks, i.e. present time key-ins, and thereby disengages the pc’s attention from his life worries. In the Tech Dict. it says that rudiments are not auditing, but only serve to get the pc in session. This is only so, when you “fly a rud” at the start of a session in order to get an F/N. (“To fly a rud” means you take it to F/N.) However, when you put ruds in on a whole item or terminal, you get an actual repair rundown which is definitely auditing. (For references on ruds, see “Rudiments, Definition and Patter”, HCOB 11.8.1978, Vol.XI)

A note to the expert: This strategy of “first ruds then the major process” can be justifiably argued about. When the pc, at the start of his auditing program, comes in all weighed down by his problems, one cannot expect him to F/N. If one were to audit his ruds now just for the sake of getting an F/N, it would be mere “cosmetics” . One wouldn’t have done more than brush off a few locks. One may have even kept the pc from saying what’s really troubling him!

The pc has the natural urge to speak of nothing but his main difficulties. No matter whether one uses rudiments or any of the other processes described later, the main point is to work always in the center of the pc’s attention. As even the rudiments may serve this purpose, it would elevate them to the rank of “major process”! Which wouldn’t be a merely superficial cosmetic treatment but go right down to the core of the case.

The separation between ruds and major process therefore seems fairly arbitrary, at least with regard to a Life Repair. At a later stage when the pc is in pretty good shape anyway - e.g. on the Grades 0-IV or a special rundown - the ruds would certainly be useful as a session preparation.


Normal rudiments refer to a present time situation: an ARCX, a problem, a mw/h, an overt, an invalidation or an evaluation. The basic pattern of the procedure is: you ask the ruds question, e.g. “Have you committed an overt?”, get a read, and get the data from the pc. No F/N on this one: go earlier similar: “Is there an earlier similar overt?” Along the timetrack, earlier similar situations are arranged on a chain. As the pc goes down the chain the auditor makes sure he says all there is to each incident; finally there will be a key-out and an F/N. This is the correct EP, because in flying rudiments you are dealing with lock chains, not with engram chains, which would demand an erasure. In rudiments, the application of the basic techniques is similar to the L1C: a short 2WC - narrative (except for ARCXs as they are assessed see further down) - running chains.

When the pc has a high TA you don’t fly his ruds. Why? Because something is already in restimulation. You don’t need to free his attention from present time concerns in order so that you can then restimulate some part of his bank with a process it’s happened already, so you find what it is and handle it. For this, the rudiment questions are not useful. (See the section on High TA.)

As we have already pointed out concerning the L1C, one can make a fatal mistake at the point of picking up a reading question and when one goes E/S. As one picks up a reading question one must make very sure that the answer of the pc reads, too, otherwise one risks running an uncharged item and cannot complete the cycle of action. With regard to going earlier/ similar, one can often observe auditors rushing down rudiment chains by going E/S much to soon. This way the charge on the incident being run will not be reduced sufficiently. He will have trouble looking over the “hump” of the accumulated unhandled charge and - after a while - find no further E/S incidents. The chain goes dead with no F/N, rising TA and a hopeless auditor.

Remember the old rule of itsa. You must always get the PC to say what IT is.(“Oh-it’s-a-so-and-so!”) This way you get the exact consideration, the exact time, place, form and event. Don’t take just everything the pc says for an answer. Think of the definition of TR 3: only acknowledge when you have received an answer directly to the question; never acknowledge anything else. So: what exactly IS the problem? The W/H? The overt? The evaluation? The invalidation? - Get his “itsa” and you will get a good read on it. If it does not F/N, you’ll get your F/N on an earlier similar one.

An ARCX is a restimulation of a loss (a secondary). When the pc is ARC-broken, he is angry or sad about something. Get what person, place or subject he is ARC-broken with. Keep it short. Then assess the ARCX, get the point which reads the most and indicate it to the pc. “Is it a break in Affinity - Reality - Communication - Understanding ?” Usually he brightens up on the indication. Continue by assessing Curious - Desired- Enforced - Inhibited - No - Refused on the point found. (To refresh your memory, see the beginning of Part Two in the previous book or in [1].) Supposing the biggest read on the previous assessment had been on “Reality”, you would ask: “Regarding this ARCX, were you curious about a reality?” “Was there a desired reality?” And so on. Find the most charged point on this assessment, too, and indicate it to the pc.

Now that you have found and indicated what it is (“an enforced reality”), the pc’s ARC is to some degree re-established. Have him look at the incident in terms of what you indicated to him, and he will have cognition’s. He never looked at it this way. He thought it was a “desired reality” but thinking that obviously didn’t help him. So obviously the assessment serves as a fast way to get the exact “what” of the ARCX. To continue, you go E/S to F/N, or - should the pc have had this ARCX for a while already - you handle it by Long Duration technique (see below) .

Slow ARCX-assessment by TA: New PC’s usually have a hard time following the ARCX assessment. They haven’t understood the concepts involved and so you possibly won’t get any reads. Doing a slow assessment by TA (E-Meter Drill 23) makes it really easy on the pc and he gets grooved in on the procedure at the same time. You have him originate on each point of the A-R-C-U and the CD-E-I-N-R-assessment, note all reads, and after each assessment indicate the biggest reading point to him. After a few times through this slow procedure the pc will now be ready to follow the rapid assessment, with good reads. (No concept = no reads. -The other reason for no reads of course is: your TR-1 is too weak.)

In contrast to the ARCX the problem is talked about, and very much so, in the 2WC-part of the handling, until one has found out what really is the matter. (This is done as well with all the following rudiments.)The auditor must be careful not to mix up all those difficulties the pc is telling him about, with the actual problem beneath it all. When he falls into this trap, he will believe that he has all the data now and go E/S much too soon. In everyday language it is quite customary to call any difficulty a “problem”, but in technical terms we have to differentiate very carefully between the two. A difficulty is nothing but an obstacle one has to overcome. As long as one is high-spirited and believes in one’s success, there are (technically speaking) no problems. The counter-intentions of others or the mest-universe are never a problem. Only when one begins to doubt oneself or the possibility of winning (2nd postulate), does a problem arise: in the form of indecision, withdraw and standstill.

It is therefore the task of the auditor to peel the actual problem out of the difficulties the pc will tell him about. What was the pc’s intention when he set out to do a certain thing, and what is the intention he agreed to when he decided to stop doing this thing or decided to do something else? Note that both postulates are the pc’s. A counter-intention may seemingly come from the environment or a terminal, but in fact what you are looking at is an agreement made by the pc with the source of the counter-intention (Dn Axiom 118). It’s strictly 2nd postulate counter 1st postulate.

Example: Father says: “No, you don’t go to the movies before you are grown up.” Son is 6 years old when this is said; now - at the time of the session - he is 35 years old and still doesn’t go to the movies. What counter-postulate did he form against his own wish that kept him from going to the movies up to the present day? - It’s not what the father said. It’s what he made up himself to agree with it!

When you have established what the problem is and didn’t get an F/N, you go E/S.


Hubbard had a lot to say about this subject. It’s a whole philosophy on ethics and personal integrity. For the purpose of this text we will keep to the practical side of handling mw/h’s and overts. Should anyone wish more detailed information on this subject beyond what was said in Part Two, he is encouraged to consult the index of Vol.X or study “Academy Level II”.

Overts and w/hs are run the same way because both have in common that a) something was done or, respectively, withheld, and b) that the person wonders if he’s been found out or not. So there are two sections each for handling overts or withholds, with the emphasis on section a). Section b) is not always the case. After all, there are overts and withholds where you never felt found out afterwards and didn’t have to develop a bad conscience regarding anyone. Except for yourself perhaps: anytime you thought of it.

Re a): You must get all of the w/h or the overt; that’s the ethics part of it. What has he DONE; time, place, form (the circumstances of the incident), and event (the actual sequence in the incident, what effect was caused, what the consequences were, what harm was done). One important aspect of looking at “event” as “consequences” is the possibility of examining harm done and whether in fact any harm was done! Too often whether something is an overt is accepted from someone else’s evaluation of it, e.g. the morals of one’s parents or society. So the auditing of overts should specifically include the opportunity to realize this. (The question: “In what way was that actually an overt?” can start this re-evaluation very effectively.) Where it is really an overt, looking at “event” as outcome, harm caused, encourages an examination of the ethics of it more immediately.

Omitting this differentiation would certainly bring about the “false reads” often observed in this context (when it was not an overt), or a particular w/h may always come up again and again, although it has “F/Ned” already (when the pc never had the opportunity to re-evaluate the supposed overt).

There is no “system” to it. It takes asking curious questions and relying on your E-meter and not acknowledging before the whole thing has become clear to you as the auditor. And you must get all of the facts - only then will the pc have confronted his own responsibility for the overt and w/h. So when it looks as if the pc had said all, you ask: “Is that all of it?”, and you want to get a read there. When the pc says “yes” and it is true, there should be another read there. When there is a read on only one of the two possibilities, that is still good enough. If neither of the two read you know you haven’t got all yet. If you’d now go E/S, you’d soon be in trouble: charge was restimulated and has been left behind: it will blur the earlier similar incidents and the chain will not come to an end.

Re b): You must get who missed it, who almost found him out, who caused him a bad conscience. “Who almost found out about what you did?” “Who made you feel he knew it?” Pc: “Joe”. Auditor: “And what did Joe do that made you think he knew?”

This is the social aspect of it; it’s cleaning up the pc’s ARCXs which formed on the basis of his mw/h or overt. In the first part you get the facts, in the second part you get who missed it. Always bear in mind: ‘“All ARCXs stem from missed withholds.” This principle leads to an important application: it allows the auditor to start from an ARCX and trace it right down to the underlying mw/h and overt, without taking the ARCX to an F/N first! He would get the pc “to dive straight through”, as it were. (See the chapter “Integrity”, section 10, in [17]; as well HCOB 30.11.1978, “Confessional Procedure”,Vol.XII)

And mind you: don’t make the pc feel bad by a stem face or reproachful tone of voice, because of his withholds and overts! Stay calm and factual. Get the subjective rightness in them. Despite the wrongness of the overt or the w/h there were rightnesses. He didn’t talk about his deeds as this would have endangered his self preservation. That’s a rightness. (See definition of w/h in the Tech Dict.) He committed the overt because he was sitting on a misunderstood word - such as a set of false, uninspected values - which made it right to do what he did (see “cycle of an overt”, Tech Dict.). Or it is a datum held in high esteem by him - and in fact, on inspection it turns out to have been received through a method called “teaching by engrams”. It was father beating up Jonny whilst speaking wise words. Father is of course out of valence himself at this time, and makes himself the mouthpiece of his bank. This way father makes sure that his bank is properly transferred to the next generation. It’s not in the blood, as folk wisdom has it. It’s in the bank!

Not only through the application of fatherly violence can Jonny pick up father’s valence and along with it uninspected attitudes, but as well through his admiration for father. Jonny may, for example, wind up one day at court for repeated theft in department stores. “Why did you steal?”, asked the judge. “They have plenty of them anyway!”, says Jonny. End of hearing. The auditor would ask: “And where does this idea come from?” In the end it turns out that father once, when Jonny was three years old, had taken a few apples from the farmer’s apple tree without permission, and mother had said: “But William! You can’t do that!” Whereupon he shrugged magnanimously, took a bite with relish from a stolen apple, and said: “They have plenty of them anyway!” Who was the winner here? Father. Whom did Jonny admire? Father. Whose valence did he take on? Father’s, of course. Mother didn’t make herself heard successfully, so she was the loser.

As a further possibility there is of course the combination of the above with a real implant, which makes the whole matter even harder to resolve. The common denominator is, in any case, that the pc sits on a false datum, is identified with the source of it, has gone out of valence to it and commits any amount of overts on that basis which he has no trouble at all justifying.

Naturally, none of these justifications make the overts or w/hs right. But they help the auditor to understand the pc! And that’s his job, after all. The real and only overt, by the way, is having violated one’s own integrity by making a 2nd postulate. That’s contra-survival against oneself to start with, but later spreads out over all of the dynamics. When you have dug as deep as that, your pc will have some big cognition’s!

(See the definitions of “W/H” and “Cycle of an Overt” in the Tech Dict., as well of “Murder Routine”.)


Inval and Eval are the easiest ones on both pc and auditor. Just itsa and E/S itsa. But don’t sell them off cheaply ! Self-inval is the bottom line to the whole case ! If he hadn’t violated his integrity he wouldn’t have committed the overt of forming a 2nd postulate and not gotten into the predicament of withholding it from others and himself. And that’s the point where the thetan starts digging his own grave!

As usual, do get a reading itsa on both inval and eval before you go earlier similar.

(See the appendix for a schematic graph on the handling of rudiments. )


LD Ruds refer to a situation which has “always been like this”, “all my life”, “never been any different”, etc. The attention of the pc is not on a present time situation but on a time span of considerable magnitude.

Here one cannot simply go E/S after a few words about the matter. That would be too fast; it wouldn’t be in proportion to the magnitude of the charge. Instead, one must find out when exactly the specific out-rud situation began. So instead of asking for “E/S?” one asks for and gets the earlier beginning (“E/B”), lockscans to PT, asks for yet another earlier beginning and another, each time lock-scanning to PT, until one has found the exact beginning of the situation. (“I always had money problems, all my life, and it started when I got my first pocket money and it wasn’t enough to buy a lollipop with.”) This will result in great relief for the pc, followed by a BD and perhaps an F/N.

When you do not get an F/N at this point you must decide whether you want to go about it thoroughly or just quickly finish it off with a simple key-out. In the latter case it would be enough to Date/Locate this moment, to F/N. (This process is described in a later section.) In the former, you would have to continue lock-scanning till the pc has found the basic, and then let him run that incident narratively until it is erased and the postulate in it found.

It is not recommended to ask for an “E/S out-rud of LD?” as that would get you into a different postulate chain. Each LD out-rud describes a unique situation, really, and should be handled as such, i.e. by analyzing its specific postulate structure.

When the auditor, in running normal ruds, gets originations from the pc which indicate LD Ruds are out, he of course switches over to the LD-method.

When the auditor has a specific C/S to do LD Ruds, the command would be for example: “Do you have an ARCX of long duration?” - or: “Is there a problem you have had for a very long time?”


LD Ruds, as we have seen, are an excellent way to dig up basics and the postulates contained within them. These can then be worked on further in the style of Postulate Auditing. LD Ruds therefore go way beyond the scope of normal rudiments which are designed to merely key out currently troublesome situations. The procedure of finding postulates is now shown in detail:

ARCX: First get its beginning, assess it at the time of the beginning and indicate to the pc what you found, then have the pc look over his time track at all later similar items (e.g. “a refused affinity”) with lock scan procedure. It may even go down to an earlier beginning now. Find out what he thought, decided, postulated or intended at the very moment when his affinity was refused. This way you get the 2nd postulate.

Problem: Get what he wants (1st postulate) and what exactly keeps him from doing it; find out when this happened the first time (exact beginning) and then peel the exact thought out of the basic incident which made him agree that it wasn’t possible to get or do what he wanted (2nd postulate).

Missed Withhold: Get as much of the w/h as is easily available to the pc, trace it back to its beginning, all the while getting more and more of the w/h until you have it ALL. Then find out how withholding what he did aided his survival. Now you have the 2nd postulate, the “rightness” consideration. This may F/N.

Then, even after the F/N, look for who missed it. This is an entirely different matter: it’s the ARCXs which occurred as a consequence of the w/h. Lockscan these ARCXs and get an F/N on this, too. (Quite often the pc will tell you who missed it even whilst talking about the actual w/h; therefore the “missed”-part may be no more than a mop-up of bits left over from before.)

Overt Get what he did, trace it back to the first time. Find out from him how committing the overt was a solution to a problem. Then have the pc find out how doing what he did went against his own integrity; how it was wrong by his own standards. (It must be, else there wouldn’t be any charge.) Don’t buy any hogwash about morals and “everybody thinks”. That’s not the overt. It’s how he violated his own principles, maxims or policies - whether they were invented by him personally, or adopted by him from others, doesn’t matter, as long as he considered them his own. And then find out what went through his mind when he did it - that’s his 2nd postulate; that’s the overt. Perhaps you can even find out whose idea he had taken over there, i.e. into whose valence he went then.

Eval/lnval: Easy. Find the earliest time the pc received the particular evaluation or invalidation, then ask him what he thought of himself at that moment, and you have your 2nd postulate.


Normal ruds may very easily lead over into ruds of long duration, because the present time restimulation of the normal rud may not be a “first ever” concerning the situation in question. He has an ARCX with his aunt, ok, but is it the first time? No, he’s always had trouble with his aunt. So it may soon go into LD, either immediately or after once or twice going E/S.

Now supposing it were really the first time he has an ARCX with his aunt, you’d of course handle it by assessment and then go E/S. Now here is the difficulty: what does earlier similar mean? Well, you may say, similar is whatever the pc considers so. Good. But this may lead you anywhere! Going E/S contains the liability of the pc going “by association”. He may wind up in nowhere-land, find nothing earlier and feel generally bored with the whole thing. (With the TA creeping up and up.) He is going earlier, yes, but what is the logical thread? What’s holding the chain together? Against what is the similarity measured? As there is not a clearly defined Attitude, Emotion, Sensation or Pain (AESP), auditor and pc may not necessarily know what to relate to.

Let us stay with the example of the aunt and suppose it were a “refused affinity”. So what is the pc to do as he goes earlier similar? He is clearly not intended to just find an earlier similar incident of “refused affinity” as the next auditing command asks him to find a new ARCX, an earlier similar one, which is assessed newly.

The definition of “ITSA” presents the answer to this theoretical dilemma. As soon as the pc has found the exact ARCX (or whatever the rud may be), as soon as he has found exactly what it is, he will have a stable datum to work from when he goes E/S. This may occur after the ARCX-assessment, too. You have found, by assessment, that it is a “refused affinity” . You have indicated the charge on it to the pc. The pc does not brighten up particularly. So you ask him to look at this ARCX in terms or “refused affinity” and to tell you about it. Now he will discover an aspect which so far has escaped his attention, he will really brighten up and say: “That’s it! That’s the moment when I felt really upset! The moment I was giving her the present and she just snarled at me! I felt totally refused.” At this moment the whole thing makes sense to the pc. He has made the data found in the assessment come alive for himself. And now he will know what to look for when you give him the E/S command. So do take the time to get a proper itsa.


The C/S-instruction: “Repetitive Ruds till they F/N on call” means that you fly six ruds (“on life” or on a particular item), each to F/N. Then you run them again. This time some will F/N “on call”, i.e. they F/N right after giving the command, without even a read. Then you run the sequence a third time, omitting those which have F/Ned on call on the run before, to forego an over-run. (An O/R means going on too long, past the end phenomenon.) Continue this way until they have all F/Ned on call.


Further up, in the section on the E-meter, the subject of “false reads” was mentioned. It’s the read you get because the pc feels invalidated or evaluated by the question, or that your question restimulates evaluation/invalidation of LD because he’s been asked the same stupid question so many times before. (“You look so worried - anything wrong?”, when he actually feels fine.) It means the person received a false indication by the one asking the question.

If this happened many times to someone throughout his life he will develop the general feeling that nobody understands him and he will feel uncomfortable with people as they keep misinterpreting how he actually feels. To handle this case-situation, you just fly 6 “false” ruds on him, repetitively till they F/N on call. “Did anyone say/think/assume you had a (rud) when you didn’t have one?” Run per E/S or LD; whatever applies best. As a result, the pc will feel very rehabilitated regarding his social life. (This is also very valuable as a clean up of past bad auditing - which unfortunately does happen not infrequently.)


This is a useful process when you have a pc who lives in a persistent state of panic and overwhelm because he thinks “they are after me to get me”. You just reverse the ruds flow and make him confront what people are actually thinking about him. “Does anyone have an ARCX with you? A problem with you? A w/h from you? An overt on you? Feel evaluated/invalidated by you?” Run per E/S or LD as suits the situation best. This cleans up the pc’s considerations about his social field like you wouldn’t believe.


In auditing, the action of theta (reaching and withdrawing) is looked at in terms of four flows, i.e. the flow of mest particles or attention units from one terminal to the other. Flow one (F-1) is the inflow or motivator, flow two (F-2) the outflow or overt, flow three (F-3) the flow between two people with oneself being the witness; flow zero (F-0) goes from oneself back to oneself in circular fashion (therefore “zero”).

The “quad” in “Quad Ruds” means “quadruple”, “fourfold”. When the C/S orders Quad Ruds to be done, you run six ruds on F-1, then on F-2, then on F-3, then on F-0.You could do it as a general action without any prefix to the command, but it works best on a specific highly charged terminal. Example: F-1:” Does Joe have a (rud) with you?” - F-2: “Do you have a (rud) with Joe?” - F-3A: “Does Joe have a (rud) with others?” - F-3B: “Do others have a (rud) with Joe?” - F-0: “Do you have a (rud) with yourself because of Joe?”

This process may be mindblowing; or it may be dead boring. Therefore, use it selectively.

4.4 Rehabilitation Procedure

As most students ask the same questions concerning the HCOB 19 December 1980, “Rehab Tech”, one may conclude that this bulletin presents a simple procedure in a confusing way. The following section may serve as a clarification.


Rehabilitation directly aims at re-establishing wins and abilities which the pc has lost because he went into agreement with an invalidation or suppression. (See Dn Axiom 118.)The result of a good rehab is: more certainty for the pc, less self-invalidation and doubt, past purposes unearthed and validated. His succumb postulates have been detected and as-ised; he is again ready “to go for it”.


Arranged on a timetrack, the following three points come in this sequence (from early to present time): first the key-out - then the release or win - then the key-in. Let us look at this for a moment: the pc has made his 1st postulate (“I want to learn swimming”) . Later some water gets into his lungs. This is painful (engram) he makes the 2nd postulate (“I’m suffocating”). That’s the absolute basic. After this, he never goes swimming again and gets a tight feeling in the throat when he sees lakes or swimming pools. Then, because of favorable circumstances (friends, nice holiday), he overcomes his fear by his own strength, goes swimming and discovers that he can do it! That is a release. What had to fall away from him to make it possible is the 2nd postulate of “I’m suffocating”. The moment it fell off him: that’s the key-out. For the next few years he manages to swim well; then, one night, he falls out of a rowing boat and panics. And that is the end of his ability to swim. That is the key-in.

The above may be interpreted in two ways: either the old 2nd postulate (“I’m suffocating”) - which was just pushed away but never as-ised - came back, or he made a new 2nd postulate (“I’m lost!”) Only the first of the two, strictly speaking, would be a key-in, i.e. a locking-on of an already existing counter postulate; the latter really would be a new GPM on the chain, complete with a newly made counter-postulate. This terminological differentiation, however, is not generally made. Both of the above versions are usually called a key-in. The key-in is simply the point in time when a period of release comes to an end.

So, in brief: the point of key-out is defined as something unwanted (a 2nd postulate) going away; the point of key-in is defined as something unwanted (the same or another 2nd postulate) coming in on one. The release is the stretch of time when one is in full possession of one’s ability, i.e. when one is working on the basis of one’s 1st postulate. The duration of this varies considerably, depending on circumstances.

Mind you, although it’s always a postulate which keys in or out the pc will not necessarily be aware of this. He may give you any amount of AESP-items instead. (“A” items, attitudes, are postulates, though.) Example: “Suddenly I had this terrible pain in my chest and I couldn’t swim any longer”. Of course, you have to work with what he is giving you, particularly as long as it reads well.

There are two distinctly different handlings. There is the key-out variety which works on the basis of prepcheck technique, and there is the erasure variety which works on the basis of Postulate Auditing. The key-out variety demands less skill from the auditor and is useful for light actions, like rehabilitating the EP of a session just after one over-ran it. But when the key-in has led to deep-seated failed purposes or heavy somatics, the Postulate Auditing variety will be the tool to use.

The key-out method is of temporary value only as the pc may key in again when life is sufficiently nasty to him. After all, his 2nd postulates were not erased but only destimulated and “switched off”. The plug has been pulled out of the bank. But the bank can plug itself back in on the basis of the very same 2nd postulates! This of course won’t happen when you have erased the 2nd postulates by Postulate Auditing technique. The pc ideally - is down to his 1st postulate and acts and lives by it. All past 2nd postulates have been as-ised. He can’t key in - but he can make a new 2nd postulate when there is more counter-effort in life than he can take. (See “randomity” in Dianetic Axiom 144 and others.)


In the actual rehabilitation process you run the three points in question in a different sequence from how they are arranged on the timetrack: first the release point, then the key-out before it, then the key-in after it. Why? - Because the thetan is less interested in his bank than in his abilities. As the rehab procedure addresses lost abilities, the release obviously holds the most interest for the thetan. Rehabilitating the release means putting the pc’s attention on his 1st postulate. That’s why it is looked at first. With good TRs (TR 2!) and some good luck the process may already come to an EP as soon as the main point of interest (the release) has been found and acknowledged. No F/N at this point means that the release (i.e. the 1st postulate) is buried under much charge accumulated through suppressing, invalidating and not-acknowledging it (all of which are 2nd postulates). A simple acknowledgment of the release apparently is not sufficient to make the pc overcome this charge. Therefore one has to audit these “three buttons” repetitively. “On the release, has anything been suppressed/invalidated/not acknowledged?” They are not being assessed! As in prepchecking, you ask the pc for each one, get your read on the question or on his answer and run it repetitively till it goes flat or F/Ns. As the pc is itsa-ing he is blowing charge; the release is coming back up to the surface; finally it’s all cleaned up and there is your F/N. 1st postulate back in full swing.

No F/N after the three buttons on the release: there must be more charge elsewhere. There are two options for this, two masses the pc has not yet perceived and fully acknowledged: either the mass which fell off him (key-out) and made it possible for him to go release, or the mass which came on to him after the release and ended the period of release (key-in). Run your pc through these two points, find out exactly what A or E or S or P keyed out or keyed in and discharge it by use of the buttons. The rehab will come to an EP at either of the two points, with cognition, F/N and VGIs.

When you find the release, key-out or key-in item very heavily charged, running three buttons only may not be sufficient to reduce the charge. There is no reason why you shouldn’t pull out your list of prepcheck buttons and put in some more buttons in order to help the pc through. One may argue that “suppress, invalidate, not acknowledged” are closely aligned with alter-is and not-is of Axiom 11 and that one therefore shouldn’t do more than those three buttons. But this argument doesn’t hold water as all of the 20 prepcheck buttons, too, are built around Axiom 11! So if it’s ok to do the one it must be ok to do the other as well.

Indicating charge: Increase of certainty is achieved by indicating charge to the pc during the rehab. It is a form of acknowledgment (TR-2). One has to use it right; when you do it too often or unnecessarily the session will slow down and the pc grow impatient. You don’t indicate each and every read - only when he feels uncertain about something. It makes him get the feeling that he’s “spot on” with his originations. At the moment that he validates himself for his wins, he will be bigger and stronger than the bank. -This is the EP, with cognition, VGIs and F/N .

Getting the exact item: Without itsa nothing goes during a rehab! -The pc has to originate fully on each item (release, keyout, key-in) until he has said it, till he has hit the bull’s eye. It will be a postulate or an AESP-item. Here are some typical examples; for the release: “I just knew I could do it!”; for the key-out: “I lost the feeling that I’m too stupid for this”, or: “suddenly this sadness went away”; for the key-in: “I felt like a zombie and gave up”, “I felt my head was bursting, so I couldn’t concentrate and failed the exams.” - It’s not what happened: “As I walked down the road I felt sort of nice.” That would be a mere situation. You are looking for what he postulated or felt emotionally or physically, and for the exact formulation of it.

You want the exact wording, and that is what you audit the three buttons on. In getting the exact wording the auditor goes for the biggest possible read (ideally LFBD, of course) and pays attention to the indicators of the pc. When the pc has given his itsa down to the exact wording you’ll see it on his face and on the needle. And THAT you acknowledge - be it with good TR 2 or with a formal indication of charge.

EP trouble: When you have done all the steps and there is no F/N, you have the pc once again look at each item (release, keyout, key-in) . This serves to orient him, particularly when the session has been long. In a way, you “rehab the session” by doing so.

When this doesn’t give you an F/N either, there’s only one possibility left: the release was overshadowed by an out-rud at the time it occurred (or slightly earlier). This out-rud must be found. So you run as many ruds as needed “concerning the release” until the pc goes VGIs on the release and the process is complete.

Should even that not give you an EP-type F/N, or should the action become unworkable, then you are auditing too late on the chain. There must be an earlier beginning to this release, or an E/S release. Find the E/B or E/S, and do the action on that item. (You ought to have found that out on the initial question: “When was the release point?”, though! When the answer the pc gave then didn’t read well you could have guessed you were too late. - See further down, “Command Sequence and Patter” .)

A note on the EP: Usually the first F/N counts as the EP. The pc has his release back and that’s enough. You don’t want to push him back into the bank by further auditing. However, if the indicators of the pc aren’t quite so good, and the F/N isn’t quite as wide as you’d expect it from this pc, and if the TA is rising after the F/N - then there is still some charge cooking somewhere. So just carry on. Supposing you had - of the three possible points only addressed the release so far, and had got an F/N on a rising TA, one or both of the yet unhandled ones would still need looking at, or the rudiment steps needs doing, or there is an E/B or an E/S. - Just do the next step in the sequence, and it’ll all clear up.

When the pc is VGIs on the whole rehab and says so but the TA is rising right after the F/N, there may be some other O/R (overrun) coming up already, or a protest or a failed purpose. When a short two-way comm does not help you to find out what is going on, you had better end the session at this point and consult your C/S.


0. Instruction to the pc: In case of an in-session O/R you simply say: “We are now going to rehabilitate the point when you felt released on this process. “When you pick up an item from the introductory interview, you tell the pc so: “In your interview you mentioned that you feel an overwhelming sensation of happiness when you listen to music and that you regret that the feeling always passes away so soon. -We are now going to rehabilitate this state.”

1. Find the win or release till it reads then get the exact wording of WHAT it was and you’ll get an even better read.

Patter: “On the process (or subject) of X, was there a release?” (Let the pc tell you. )
“When was that?”
“Where was it?”
“What exactly would you call this win or release?”

“On (exact wording of the release), has anything been:
- suppressed?”
- invalidated?”
- not acknowledged?”
(Each reading button repetitively till flat or F/N.)

2. No F/N on 1: find the key-out before the release till it reads, get exactly WHAT it is and a bigger read.

Patter: “What keyed out before the release?” (Let the pc tell you.)
“What would you call that exactly?”
“On (exact wording of the key-out) has anything been:
- suppressed?”
- invalidated?”
- not acknowledged?”
(Each reading button repetitively till flat or F/N.)

3. No F/N on 2: find the key-in which ended the time of release to a read, get exactly WHAT keyed in and a bigger read.

Patter: “What keyed in after the release?” (Let the pc tell you. )
“What would you call that exactly?”
“On (exact wording of the key-in), has anything been:
- suppressed?”
- invalidated?”
- not acknowledged?”
(Each reading button repetitively till flat or F/N.)

4. No F/N on 3: Have the pc look at the release, the key-out and the key-in and invite him to tell you more about each point.

Patter: “Have another look at the release. -Would you like to tell me some more about it?” (Same with key-out and key-in.)

5. No F/N on 4: Check for out-ruds concerning the release.

Patter: “Concerning the release, was there:
- an ARCX?”
- a Problem?”
- a missed withhold?”
- an overt?”
(Run only as many ruds as needed to complete the rehab.)


In many cases a rehab doesn’t just concern a session win (in which case the procedure by key-out would serve just fine) but touches on deep-seated failed purposes in the pc. As we have seen, the moment a 2nd postulate is made the lid is put on one’s 1st postulate. This is not a key-in, a relative basic, it’s the absolute basic.

In the “rehab by key-out” style you were working on what the pc gave you right away, i.e. on the latest release. You worked with buttons to attain a key-out. In the “rehab by Postulate Auditing” you 1. search for the earliest release the pc can find; 2. get all the postulates which keyed out or in; 3. erase all incidents connected with these postulates.

1. Pc: “I always wanted to become a concert pianist, but in the end I had to give up on it.” (Failed purpose). -Auditor: “Did you ever go release (or: have any wins) on playing the piano?” (Big read.) - PC (brightens up): “Yes, when I won a contest at school and was awarded the first prize.” - Auditor has the pc lock-scan all later times when he felt good about playing the piano, asks for E/B and finally gets the first time the pc made this postulate and had full certainty regarding it. This was either early in this life or in an earlier life. If the pc has VGIs but no F/N, a Date/Locate (see section below) will do the job.

There will be no key-out preceding this, of course. It’s the moment the 1st postulate was made, so it isn’t even a release, really. There is nothing earlier. In this case you would only have to find the key-in points following later (see below). More usually, though, the pc will not manage to go all the way down his track to the time he actually made this 1st postulate; he will give you a later time, and that would be a release with both key-out before and key-in afterwards.

Result of step 1: you have rehabilitated a release where the pc knew with great certainty that he wanted to become a pianist and knew that he was going to make it, too. This may or may not F/N. No F/N means: key-out or key-in are pressing in on the pc. In either case, do the remaining steps. You want a general erasure, not just a momentary key-out.

2. Regarding the release found, find out what keyed out to make it possible. If the pc gives an attitude (postulate) right away - great! Repeater tech on it. If he gives you an E, S or P: lock-scan the item to an F/N. Note down all the postulates. Despite the F/N, do step 3, too.

3. Auditor: “Tell me all the times when you felt it was impossible to make it as a piano player.” - Lock-scan down to earliest key-in. Again, make sure to take notes of all the postulates the pc gives you. Result of step 2 and 3: Absolute basics found and erased.

4. Now take up all postulates in order of read size and audit them by repeater technique, the last step of Postulate Auditing.

Result: the pc’s own and foreign-made postulates are as-ised, all incidents, entities and valences connected with them have been erased. From now on, nothing should interfere any more with the PC’s following up his purposes and plans. As long as he does what needs doing to take him there! Because it won’t happen all by itself.

Please note that the sequence may be different at times. Quite often in step 1, the pc will start talking about his key-ins right away. That’s fine, take it up and handle as described in step 3. Then put the other steps in. Always work along the lines of the pc’s interest and you’ll be all right. The bank will “defoliate” all by itself.


“Rehab by counting” is a shortcut method used to obtain a quick key-out concerning a subject. It is very useful when you just want to handle surface charge and leave a more thorough handling till later. It is excellent for handling false reads, for keying out the aberrated, compulsive variety of “pleasure moments”, induced by drugs, sex and alcohol (see Tech Dict.), and for rehabilitating light and repeated releases. All of this needs a light approach.

The procedure:
Pc: “I feel so great playing the piano; I really love it!” - LF. (Note that this statement is made in a light mood. Therefore a light approach is justified.)

Auditor: “Give me the first figure that comes to your mind: how often did you feel great playing the piano?”

Pc: “163 times.” - F. Auditor: “I’d like to indicate to you, you felt great playing the piano 163 times. This figure is correct. “ - BD F/N VGIs.

It may not always go so easily. Here is a complication you are going to encounter often:

Pc: “163 times (F). But that can’t be as I haven’t played more often than maybe 20 times all in all!” (Rise)

Auditor: “That’s all right. You see, in auditing we duplicate and understand what the bank has to say, no matter if it’s true for your present life or not. The bank is an aberrated machine; it may give aberrated answers. When these answers are charged they are important, so we take them up. - I’d like to indicate to you that 163 is the right answer. There are 163 pleasure moments connected with playing the piano!” - LF. No F/N. Pc smiles but is somewhat uncertain.

Auditor: “Please acknowledge the bank around you that 163 is the right answer; do it in a loud voice. “ - Pc does, laughs, LFBD F/N.

Note that the auditor acknowledges the pc’s answer in a general way. He does not say: “You had 163 pleasure moments in playing the piano”, but: “There are 163 . . .” etc. This way he not only acknowledges the pc himself but as well all the entities and valences who have responded to the auditing command and contribute to the total figure of 163 (whereas 20 is correct for the pc).

In the light of this, here is a final variation:

Pc: “163 times (F). But that can’t be as I haven’t played more often than maybe 20 times (sF) all in all!” (Rise)

Auditor gives his little explanation about duplicating and understanding the bank, and then says: “I would like to indicate that 163 is correct for the bank, and 20 times is correct for you!” BDVGIs F/N.

Why this handling? Because in this case the “20 times” read as well as the “163”; so both need acknowledging separately.

The reference for this approach is given by the auditing comm cycle (Tech Dict.), where the pc is seen as separate from the bank and consulting it as if it were a data manual - which in fact it is. There is nothing wrong with reminding the pc occasionally that in auditing one is dealing with bank data and not necessarily with his data. This keeps auditing from getting too serious and the pc from introverting into the “wisdom’s” the bank has to offer. As well there are the important references of Axiom 29 and Factor 28, whereby you must assign the correct authorship to a particle, mass or energy so as to make it blow.

4.5 Dating And Locating (D/L)


Dating and Locating (D/L) is a very fast and direct method to produce a key-out. One gets the exact date and location of the earliest beginning of the incident the pc is recalling. This usually is a relative basic. A D/L therefore produces a key-out by snapping the link between absolute basic and pc. The GPM gets disconnected. A D/L works on time and place only; form and event are only considered as much as they are needed to correctly get time and place.

Dating & Locating is useful to blow charge off somatics the pc may have had in the past: “As a child I had pneumonia”. Or: “I sometimes got panicky in elevators”. You have to find the beginning; that’s all there is to it. Once you have it you can do your D/L. For rehabilitating failed purposes it is very useful: you D/L the first moment the pc postulated his purpose (1st postulate) with the absolute certainty that this was what he was going to be or do or have, and that he was going to make it. (“On the day after my fourth birthday I just knew I wanted to be a farmer. It was exactly at 10:27 and 13 seconds. I stood on top of the staircase and still had the doorknob in my hand”. ) Likewise it can be used to blow a stop off (2nd postulate). Just find the earliest moment the pc can recall of encountering the stop and D/L it. It works nicely. (“When my father said I should become a school teacher and not a farmer. I was twelve years old; 1956, 8th of May, at 2:23 and 12 seconds; I stood next to the mirror in the lounge, right between him and the door.”) Nothing should keep you from finding the postulate in the incident, too; it’s the postulate, after all, which creates the stop.

D/L serves as a shortcut in lockscanning. Instead of going through the lock chain again and again and again until it’s flat, and then finding the basic and running it again and again and again till it’s erased, you may do a D/L and get the earliest beginning of the earliest incident right away, resulting in a key-out with VGIs and F/N. -The choice of the tool you are going to use depends on your thoroughness of approach. Some things you want to treat lightly only - that’s where the D/L comes handy. It does depend as well on the pc’s confront level. A pc who can’t look down his timetrack deeply enough will get very shallow key-outs with a Date/Locate.

Date/Locating is a very light action. It takes good TRs to do it, particularly a friendly TR-0 and TR-2. -This is because the lack of certainty in the pc must be made up for by the certainty of the auditor. More than anywhere else, the auditor’s presence is upholding the session here.


(0) In the earlier part of the session or in the interview, you have established something which you are now going to date and locate. Usually it is the beginning of an incident. Example: pc has had flu or has it now. So you start out by saying: “Tell me about (whatever the condition is you want to D/L)”.

(1) Get the exact beginning of the incident. Ask “Is there an earlier beginning?” (E/B), until you have the exact beginning. You can tell when you have it because you will get a good read on it and the pc will brighten up.

Getting the exact beginning is important because all things start with a postulate. But don’t push for it as not all pcs are equally able to find the postulate right away. Just take what the pc gives you easily. - When the pc has found the beginning exactly and there is no F/N, the exact date will get the F/N.

(2) “When was that?” (i.e. the exact beginning.) The pc will answer with some form of date; it may not always be a calendar type date. (“In 1963” as an example for a calendar type date; “When I was 6” and “Just after the thunderstorm” as other acceptable ways of dating.)

(3) “When was it exactly?” Get the pc to narrow it down within the time system he started out with. Indicate each part of the date he is giving which reads. Encourage him to be as precise as he possibly can. (In May - sF; the 17th sF; 3:30 pm -T; no. 3:34! - F; 3:34 and 28 seconds!” - LF.) Usually the pc will refuse to believe that one can be this precise. Use good and friendly TR-2 and he’ll be amazed to see how finely he can get it narrowed down. -At some point there will be a LF or a BD, and an F/N.

(4) No F/N on (3): indicate the complete date to the pc in the sequence he gave it. It will F/N now.

(5) No F/N after full indication: “On that time, was anything suppressed? - invalidated? - not-ised?” (Each reading button repetitive to flat or F/N.)

There will be a correction of the date; or some detail in the incident will come up which hasn’t been looked at ever. Then the rest of the charge on the date will blow and it will F/N.

(6) With or without F/N on the dating step: do the locating step now. The end product of the action is to blow the mass completely. You have discharged it sufficiently on the dating step already; when there was no F/N on it, the locating step will complete the job.

If you had a big BD and wide F/N and VGIs on the dating step you may have blown the complete mass already. - Do the locating step anyway, just to be sure. But careful! Don’t O/R! Don’t make him pull back what he has blown already!

Command: “With your hand still on the can, take one finger off and point m the direction of the incident where it seems to be now.” Keep the pc from going “rational” or “geographical”. Encourage him to point to the first thing which comes to his mind, to do it intuitively. This will give you a good read.

The pc in most cases points directly to the ridge, not to the real or imagined geographical location of the incident. He will point upward or downward, left or right - wherever the ridge is situated. Less often the pc will locate himself in the actual incident, i.e. himself as a thetan. It does happen, for example when he went exterior after his own death and felt all confused about his location.

(7) “What’s the distance to that point? Do the same procedure as in the dating step (3); down to the millimeter if needed. Indicate in full at the end (4); use the three buttons when there is no F/N after the full indication (5) . There will be a final blow after this step, and a final F/N.

(8) If there is still no F/N, there must be an earlier similar time (E/S) or an earlier beginning (E/B).You didn’t get the first time or the exact beginning right when you started the action.

Don’t lose your TRs over this. Do step (1) again and go through the process in the same way as before. It will work now.

Note: The meter reads as soon as the pc reaches with his attention towards the right item in his bank. So pointing out reads as he is looking can help him find the hidden answer. This is called “steering” (E-Meter Drill 21). Use the meter for steering purposes only when the pc doesn’t know further or is uncertain. If you do steer, keep it light; just enough to get him going again. - Do not make the pc depend on the meter, whether in a D/L or any other process. You want to create certainty of self in the pc, not meter dependence.

(References: Meter dependence: Tech Vol.V, p. 334. D/L Procedure: XII-233. General background: Axioms 11,12;17,18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24; 30, 38.)

4.6 Listing And Nulling (L&N)

Listing and Nulling are two aspects of the same process. Listing was already explained earlier on, in the chapter “Introduction to the various Techniques”. One asks a question which is formulated in such a way that it allows only a single item as an answer, the pc gives a list of possible answers until he hits upon the answer of all answers. This is “THE item”. The auditor “gives the pc his item”, and if it hasn’t F/N’ed yet, it will F/N now.

Should it not work out so nicely, the auditor must use “nulling”. He repeatedly assesses the reading items on the list until they all except one, stop reading. They have become null-items. (See as well E-Meter Drill 24.)The last one remaining is considered by elimination -THE item. Nulling has its risks, for once the pc begins to lose certainty or to lack interest in the subject, your L&N-action will stall! Therefore it is best to find the item already on the listing step when the charge on the subject is still good and hot.

Even without nulling, listing doesn’t always work as smoothly as in the icecream-example. Take a question like: “In your life, who or what would you like to help?” This question is likely to hit the core of the whole case, provided it is well placed. Here, however, the pc will not be ready and prepared to rattle off half a dozen answers and then come up with the item. Oh no! He will think and figure and sweat and grumble and even claim that he cannot possibly find a proper answer to the question! It may go on like this for an hour. Without excellent TR-4 from the side of the auditor the session will come to a dead standstill. And precisely that is the difficulty of L&N: it is too simple an action! The auditor can’t hide behind some tech. He has his question (which of course has to read) and his TRs - nothing else.

There is a specialty we ought to deal with here: sometimes it happens that the pc answers with a plural-item instead of a singular-item, and that it F/N’s. Example: in the interview the pc complained about the frightening state of the Earth in political and ecological respects. The C/S decides to get right down to the bottom of the matter and writes the following question into the program: “Who or what would ruin the planet?” (This wording was chosen in accordance with an origination of the pc done during the interview and accompanied by a BD.) PC: “The human race!” BD, F/N, GIs. (Not VGIs.) The auditor does a “represent list” now, in order to reduce the answer to a singular item: “Who or what would represent ‘the human race’ to you?” PC (a woman): “All men!” Again with BD, F/N, GIs. Auditor: “Who or what would represent ‘all men’ to you?” Pc searches around a bit and then, to the surprise of both, comes up with the answer: “Joseph Stalin!” and starts to laugh uncontrollably and compulsively. Big BD, big F/N, VGIs. Later it turns out that she, in her life just before this one, was a victim of Stalin’s agricultural reforms and died in this context. The original L&N question obviously beamed down to a deep and heavy layer of charge which was hidden under present-day restimulators (global ecological problems) and could only be unearthed through two additional questions.

Listing and Nulling is a very direct way to get at valences, no matter if these are caused by the pc’s own incidents or by entities. It is useful with all sorts of AESPs, but works only when the pc is “ripe” for the question. When the question hits upon too many associated items of equal strength, the pc will not manage to put weight and importance on the right one, and a list with equally large reads on all items will result. You could do your nulling now, but this bears its risks as pointed out above. To avoid these and not give a wrong item to the pc, it is advisable to prepcheck the item remaining after the nulling is done. Or you drop the whole action and follow up the AESP item in question by lock-scanning in order to find the underlying engram. Works slower, yes, but is a safe route.

But let us assume the pc were properly set up for this action. It would look like this then:

0. The pc said in the interview that he could not learn properly.

1. Auditor: “Who or what wouldn’t be able to learn properly?” (The questions are always asked in a potential not an actual form in order to keep the scope of possible answers wide.)

2. PC gives his list and finally comes up with “A dumb lout!” as the item, with BD, F/N,VGIs. (This could either mean that the pc was once screamed at, abused with these words and probably beaten, because he didn’t do his homework right so that his inclination to learn sank down to nil. He then went into the valence impressed on him. Or the whole thing did not happen to him personally but to an entity which connected up with him when he came home from school one day with bad marks and when father boxed his ears lightly and called him a dumb lout enough to restimulate the entity and drive the pc into its valence.)

3. The item is now prepchecked in order to get at all incidents connected with it and to thoroughly discharge it. You could just as well run six ruds on it.

Here as well there is a specialty worth mentioning: the pc may give “I!” as an answer. He has not identified the item but is identified with it. In this case one would desist from taking any further action! If one did, one would risk opening up all of the case because of the possibility of wrong authorship - and turn all hell loose on the pc.

The only danger connected with L&N is that, without enough care, the auditor could indicate a “wrong item”. It may be entirely wrong or perhaps just a little bit wrong. This can happen when the auditor did not write the precise formulation of the item down, and therefore doesn’t give the accurate item to the pc when it comes to it. Small mistakes can go a long way here! L&N can give access to deep layers of the bank, as we have seen, and if incorrectly identified, the pc can become seriously upset and introverted. He has taken the wrong reason for some recognized case difficulty. He uses a wrong why as a stable datum to re-arrange his life . And he won’t have a chance, of course! Not only was no charge blown, but additional areas of bank are restimulated, too, as he tries to make sense of it. The more the pc thinks about his wrong item, the more he will be heating the restimulation up and the more confused and unhappy he will feel. You have to keep a watchful eye on these phenomena. Should they occur, the pc must immediately be interviewed concerning his last few sessions in order to find out if a wrong item in the broadest sense of the word was given. Perhaps it did not even happen in session but came from some authoritative person whose opinions the pc is used to blindly follow! To shed light into this is not always easy, because the pc after all agreed to the wrong item. It takes some real detective work until one has found out what it is so that the pc can again disconnect from it.

(See the “Laws of Listing and Nulling” and other pertinent references in Tech Vol. X. )

5.The High And The Low TA

Definition: “Tone, n. 6, normal healthy condition, vigor: Regular exercise keeps your body in tone. 7, degree of firmness or tension normal to the organs or tissues when healthy”. (Thorndike-Barnhart Advanced Dictionary, Second Edition, 1974)

Putting it in terms of thetan instead of body the TA would indicate the tone of the thetan, i.e. his degree of tension or “charged-up-ness” .


The normal body resistance without any charge added to it is between 2.0 and 3.0. The so-called Clear read is what you get when there is no thetan in the body - either he is Clear and exterior, or it’s a corpse, i.e. a body without a soul. It’s 2.0 for women and 3.0 for men.

Why then is the TA considered “high” as soon as it’s above 3.5? Why 3.5? Why not 4.0 or 2.7? - Let’s look at this. The scale around the TA consists of a set of arbitrary figures. Other figures could have been used just the same. One could have designed a scale with 0.0 at the bottom and 15 at its top and a very fine gradation in between. Maybe this was not considered practical at the time when the E-meter was developed. For whatever reason, the scale used on scientology E-meters was decided to go from 1 to 6 and stayed like this up to the present. A lot of experience regarding the interrelation between the pc’s indicators and the TA position was accumulated over the years - in particular, of course, in the 50’s. After having had his auditors audit for a few years, Hubbard finally concluded that EPs would occur only when the TA was between 2.0. and 3.0. Mind you, this was a discovery! The significance of a high TA and the specific phenomenon of a floating needle were not known from the first day E-meters were used. Neither were these things generally observed and accepted by all auditors. This lead to loads of people being only was no charge blown, but additional areas of bank are restimulated, too, as he tries to make sense of it. The more the pc thinks about his wrong item, the more he will be heating the restimulation up and the more confused and unhappy he will feel. You have to keep a watchful eye on these phenomena. Should they occur, the pc must immediately be interviewed concerning his last few sessions in order to find out if a wrong item in the broadest sense of the word was given. Perhaps it did not even happen in session but came from some authoritative person whose opinions the pc is used to blindly follow! To shed light into this is not always easy, because the pc after all agreed to the wrong item. It takes some real detective work until one has found out what it is so that the pc can again disconnect from it.

(See the “Laws of Listing and Nulling” and other pertinent references in Tech Vol. X.)

5.The High And The Low TA

Definition: “Tone, n. 6, normal healthy condition, vigor: Regular exercise keeps your body in tone. 7, degree of firmness or tension normal to the organs or tissues when healthy”. (Thorndike-Barnhart Advanced Dictionary, Second Edition, 1974)

Putting it in terms of thetan instead of body the TA would indicate the tone of the thetan, i.e. his degree of tension or “charged-up-ness” .


The normal body resistance without any charge added to it is between 2.0 and 3.0. The so-called Clear read is what you get when there is no thetan in the body - either he is Clear and exterior, or it’s a corpse, i.e. a body without a soul. It’s 2.0 for women and 3.0 for men.

Why then is the TA considered “high” as soon as it’s above 3.5? Why 3.5? Why not 4.0 or 2.7? - Let’s look at this. The scale around the TA consists of a set of arbitrary figures. Other figures could have been used just the same. One could have designed a scale with 0.0 at the bottom and 15 at its top and a very fine gradation in between. Maybe this was not considered practical at the time when the E-meter was developed. For whatever reason, the scale used on scientology E-meters was decided to go from 1 to 6 and stayed like this up to the present. A lot of experience regarding the interrelation between the pc’s indicators and the TA position was accumulated over the years - in particular, of course, in the 50’s. After having had his auditors audit for a few years, Hubbard finally concluded that EPs would occur only when the TA was between 2.0. and 3.0. Mind you, this was a discovery ! The significance of a high TA and the specific phenomenon of a floating needle were not known from the first day E-meters were used. Neither were these things generally observed and accepted by all auditors. This lead to loads of people being run beyond their EPs in the old days and “rehabilitation tech” was even made a matter of policy in 1966 (Vol. VI, p.143). That the subject of F/N and TA position was undefined territory in the early days can be concluded from the fact that the F/N is not mentioned earlier than 1965 in the Tech Volumes (VI, p. 66) and that the E-meter drills only date from 1961 onward - fully nine years after the meter was introduced.

The question of “high” versus “normal” TA therefore is a matter of a) the agreement on a certain measuring scale and b) the observations made regarding it. On the scale being used, the “normal” TA range between 2.0 and 3.0 is marked by the two “clear reads” - 2.0 for female, 3.0 for male bodies. This refers to the body resistance with no added charge created by the thetan. However, these two points of 2.0 and 3.0 respectively are evidently not correct for all female or male bodies. The variation from body to body may be as much as 0.5 TA divisions. This means that the clear read for males may be anywhere between 2.5 and 3.5, for females between 1.5 and 2.5! Therefore the high TA starts at 3.5. Unfortunately the measuring deviation from one E-meter to the next has to be taken into account as well. It is around 0.3 TA divisions. So an objective TA of 3.5 may be at 3.2 on one meter and on 3.8 on the next. One has to keep this tolerance range in mind. It follows that a TA of 3.8 is definitely outside this tolerance band, therefore out of normal range and for this reason called a high TA. (For male bodies, mind you.) For reasons of convenience and probably because “Ron says so”, the question has been settled with the consideration that the TA starts being high at 3 .5. (Which is - quite illogically so considered valid for women as well.)


As we saw before: the thetan builds up protest charge whenever he doesn’t get what he wants, or when he can’t get away from something he does not want. This charge is made now, in the session . The energy created by the pc forms a resistance which adds to the body resistance. The needle rises. More power is needed to overcome this increased resistance. In order to keep the needle on “set”, the auditor turns up the TA to make more current flow. So the TA “rises”.

The dianetics auditors will say now: “Sure, that’s because an engram is in restimulation!” And they are right. Dianetically speaking, the charge contained in the engram, originally created in the past, has been restimulated and is re-created in the present.

Those trained in scientology techniques would say: “Rising TA means either protest or overrun! “ And they would be right as well. It may be a new protest or O/R of the present, or the restimulation of a GPM of the past. It has been dormant in the meantime and becomes active now, since the flip-flop between 1st and 2nd postulate is set in motion. (What’s the difference between a protest and an overrun? In an overrun something good happened and then things went badly, which is what the thetan didn’t like. In a protest he didn’t like what happened from the start.)

Both parties agree (the dianetics and the scientology ones) that the TA will rise when an earlier similar incident, no matter of what kind, is pressing in. You are busy planing down an incident narrative style, and the TA rises. Why? An E/S has been unearthed. Since the incident you are currently dealing with has been sufficiently unburdened, the earlier one in line can now float to the surface.

The common denominator between all these viewpoints is precisely what was said at the start of this section: the TA rises because the thetan is protesting against something - against the charge of an engram pushing in on him; against something having gone wrong in his life (protest); against something desirable having gone away and something undesirable having taken its place (O/R). All charge therefore is protest charge. The handling is different, though, depending on whether one is working in the style of dianetics or that of scientology.

A note to the budding young auditor: don’t worry when the TA rises. It’s part of the process! When you start a process on a charged item, you will see a building up of charge and a rising TA and a working off of charge and a falling TA. The TA is “pumping” . This to be expected and it is a good indicator! It means the pc is doing work. You only have to start worrying when the pc isn’t in-session anymore: disinterested suddenly, finds no more to look at, wonders about the whole thing, etc. - and the TA going up and up! So here is a rule: Pc well in-session, with TA pumping = good indicator; carry on with the process. Pc not in-session, with TA going high and sticking = bad indicator find out what’s going on.


Should the pc give up fighting his masses there is only one alternative: he has to identify with them. He goes out of valence. (DMSMH: either you dramatize the engram and you go out of valence or you suppress the dramatization and you get somatics.)

As thetan, body, and masses have become one field now, the current can flow very easily. There is very little resistance, even less than what the body offers normally. So there is very little power needed and the TA stays below 2.0. -This is a low TA. (Wet hands make a false low TA!)


We have seen that there is basically only one type of charge, and that is protest charge. The handling, however, is varied. It depends on the type of auditing one is doing, speaking in the “classical” categories, it is either dianetics (running engrams to erasure) or scientology (producing key-outs).

Engram in restimulation: On a dianetic rundown, when you see a high TA you know immediately: engram in restimulation. When this happens at session start, you must find out with the pc which engram may have gone in restimulation. When it happens during the session, you go either E/S, or look over the folder and find where it went wrong. You could as well put your hope on a repair list called “L3RG” to find and correct the mistake.

In postulate auditing you’d have to go over your worksheets to see if you didn’t finish a cycle of action properly or if there is more than one incident or entity in restimulation at the same time. (Do ask the pc. It will read when it is the case. Mostly it is the case.)

Protest or Overrun: In scientology auditing, the first thing you think of on seeing the TA rise is: protest or O/R, just as it says in C/S-Series 1. - You check these questions on the meter and handle accordingly: the O/R by Rehab procedure, the protest by itsa and E/S-itsa.

When the pc comes in with a high TA after having had a normal in-range TA in his previous sessions, you ask him if anything has happened since the last session. He will come up with a protest or an O/R, either caused by life or by his past auditing. When you don’t get a read the easy way - on the questions: “Something happened?”, “Protest?”, “Overrun?” - you had better rephrase your questions and ask the same thing in many different ways: Did anything happen the pc absolutely disagreed with? Did someone work against him? Was he fed up with something or someone? Did something good happen to him and nobody noticed it? Did he have a win or release or cognition in context with the process he ran?

When the TA is high and sticky you must ask the exact question in order to get the needle moving. This may take some doing. (Do write down exactly what you are asking!) When you hit the right area you will see a tick, and you steer the pc by it, and it turns into a sF, and now it dawns on him, and you get a F, and finally he can tell you what it is. Depending on the type of answer you handle it either by protest- or by rehab-procedure.

Exterior: If protest or O/R doesn’t handle, what do you do? Check for a very special type of release which the pc usually would not think of himself, and that’s: exterior. ‘ In your recent auditing (or: in life), did you go exterior?” (Make sure the new pc understands the question.) This will give a good read if it is the case you handle it by rehab procedure to F/N. The TA will be in normal range. Take a break till the next day. All fine the next day: carry on with your program. However, when the rehab of exterior doesn’t get the TA down into normal range, or when you got it down at the end of the session but the pc comes in the next day and his TA is up again: Now you must do an Int Rundown, there’s no way around it. (“Interiorization-Exteriorization RD”, see Tech Dict and the pertinent references in Vol .XII. )

Why does the TA go up after the pc went exterior? The explanation given in HCOB 4 Jan 71R, “Exteriorization and High TA”, is: engram in restimulation. Before he went in he was out (which is the natural state for a thetan) and having been forced in by violent means is an engram. (See “Implant” in the Tech Dict.) Going exterior, then, may restimulate the earlier beginning of the incident, and that was going interior. The ensuing high TA can be interpreted, dianetically, as engram charge. Likewise it may be looked at, scientologically, as overrun/protest charge and be handled that way.

Overruns and Protests in Life: Should the TA be high from the first moment the pc takes the cans in the interview, and if there would be no good-sized reads in the interview which would give you a lead into the charged areas, you would assume that the pc sits on some big (and often multiple) protest or O/R of long duration which has been overshadowing his life for years. (The possibility of the pc being in actual pain must be checked into as well!) So you ask for protest and O/R with the prefix “In your life, has anything been . . .?” It may be as simple as that; it may demand a more specific wording, the exact question. Make a list of possible questions to do with protest and O/R. (See the examples in the paragraph above) . Do an Assessment by TA (E-Meter Drill 23), take up the best reading area; handle by protest or O/R procedure.

Note that the pc may come up with more than one area. Start with the biggest reading one and rehab that. You may get stuck and not be able to take it to F/N - yet the TA has come down a little. Take up the next one, rehab. You may get stuck again, yet the TA is down a bit more. You are working in the right direction. Take up the third one. This may come to an F/N - a small one, on a high TA, but still an F/N. Now go back to the first area, take that to F/N. (Always and unvaryingly use the rehab procedure.) Now that this is handled, finish cycle on the second area. By now the TA will be in range and the pc happy and quite changed; his F/N will be wide now. Take up the remaining areas the pc has mentioned - but watch out: he may not even be interested any more !

Overrun and Protest because of past bad sessions: Auditing itself may drive the pc’s TA up. - He may not even have had any auditing before, yet as soon as he sees an E-Meter or gets questioned by the auditor, he keys in on past police interrogations, medical screenings, psychiatric shock treatments, on black magic sessions or even on bad past-life auditing - things he protested against or became thoroughly fed up with.

If this wasn’t picked up on the step above (“O/R and protest in life”), you ask the pc straightforwardly: does auditing remind you of anything? Have you experienced something similar to it previously? Do you feel uncomfortable about the meter? The cans? The session space? Processes? Auditors? Questions? Psychiatry? Inquisition? Police? Doctors? Rituals? Ceremonies? Weird practices? Implants? Been in scientology in your past life? Had past life auditing?

Something or other will read. Handle with protest or O/R. Quite likely the charge will have been sitting there for quite a long time already, probably since lifetimes down the track. So make sure to get the earliest beginning of the protest, or the first release point. Use lockscanning technique to clean the track so the pc can go earlier and earlier to the real beginning of it all.

Chronically high and stuck TA: Some pc’s aren’t impressed by one or more engrams or GPMs in restimulation. They manage to tell you their whole life story with their needle stuck and their TA at 4.8. Some even say they feel fine and crack a joke -TA glued to the 5.3 mark. They are so used to fighting the bank that it has become habitual to them, so much so that they don’t even notice . This is a “habitual not-is” . To crack those old jammed-up circuits there’s only one remedy: objective processes!


Before you do any low TA handlings: make sure the TA isn’t low because of the pc’s wet hands! A real low TA results from overwhelm. It means unflat OTIII, as Hubbard says on the Cl.VIII course. (See Robertson’s “Cl.VIII Notes”.) So how does one handle a low TA on a pc who isn’t on OTIII yet? -To put it differently: how can you handle the composite case without the use of the OTIII materials?

Let us first look at the underlying cause for low TA: it means identification with a winning valence (Tech Dict.) brought about by the use of force; it means overwhelm. The being has been utterly invalidated, suppressed, unmocked, made nothing of. This may have happened either to the pc himself or to an entity in his composite case which is in restimulation (without the pc knowing it, of course). No matter what: we are dealing with invalidation.

How to handle? For example by “Evaluation of long duration?” and “Invalidation of long duration?”, run alternately to F/N, first one then the other, again and again, till they each F/N on calling the command. Or by six false ruds, done repetitively (1-6, 1-6, 1-6) till they F/N on calling the command: “Did anyone say you had an (out-rud) when you didn’t have one?” This approach of course aims directly at the eval/inval the pc has inflowed from others (people or - unknowingly - his entities, circuits and valences), and gets it out of the way. - It may be followed up by six reverse ruds, repetitive to F/N: “Does anyone have a (rud) with you? “This again addresses the out-ruds the pc is inflowing from the composite case. (See the chapter on rudiments . )

Doing these little rundowns will clean up the pc’s social field, reestablish his certainty of self and put him back in valence, build up his confront and keep the composite off his back. (A good TR’s-Course would help a lot, too!) His TA will come up into range as a result.

Professional Application.

The Bridge Below Clear


With the techniques covered so far, and provided you have done your drills and TRs well, you are in the position to start auditing someone on a full Life Repair and perhaps even take him up to Clear.

An interview is always the best thing to begin a case handling with, but it demands some auditing experience and the ability to write very fast, to see and note down all reads, and to interpret them later. How to do an interview is described in a later chapter. For the moment, we are taking the viewpoint that the beginning auditor cannot do one, and ways are pointed out how he can still audit despite that.

The first action one would do on a new pc, is called “Life Repair”, as we saw in the description of the bridge in Volume 1. In the superficial understanding of the word, this means: handling what the pc’s attention is on at present; “getting the pc’s rudiments in” on his life. In a deeper understanding it would mean getting at the roots of what is fouling up the pc’s life, working directly at the core of his case, rehabilitating his causativeness and self-determinism. The greatest ruin of a thetan is the fact that he has a case . Therefore it must be the goal of all auditing actions, to make the pc go Clear or at least lead him one step further in that direction.

No matter with how much depth you are personally able to program and audit a Life Repair, as you start a case off you will always encounter four basic situations, leading to different assumptions about the auditability of the PC:

1. One would assume that the pc cannot be audited well on recall processes because he has taken drugs, medicines and alcohol excessively in the past or is doing so at present. Or because one finds out after a few sessions that his confront is so weak that he sees more in the bank than he can easily face up to and therefore runs away from it.

2. Lacking a drug history, one would assume that the pc can be audited well on recall processes. Specific situation: his attention is mainly on body problems, i.e. psychosomatic illnesses (“somatics”).

3. The same assumption as in 2, for the same reason. Specific situation: the pc has no body problems and only wishes to increase his abilities in certain areas of his life.

4. All of that together, at the same time.

The handling:

Re 1: Have the pc do TRs and objectives. That handles the low confront part. Then, if he has a drug problem as well, audit a “Drug Rundown” as the first subjective auditing action. (See section below).

Re 2: Use Dianetics or Postulate Auditing. You could of course try to key his somatics out with a Date/Locate . This works in many cases. However, should this light approach fail, you would have to do a full “Dianetic Assist” to handle his current pains. Do send the pc to the doctor first to make sure that all possibilities of standard medical help have been exhausted and that his illnesses are indeed psychosomatic. This keeps you out of legal trouble. (See as well Auditor’s Code point 25.)

- When there are no physical sensations or pains and the pc’s main interest is on his mental and spiritual development, you would start him scientology style with Ruds, Rehabs , Prepchecks . This will blow lots of locks, increase his confront ability on life and make him a real release. This approach is faster and lighter than the dianetics one, where you would list all unwanted AESPs of the pc’s life and audit the corresponding engram chains. Yet it is far less thorough, because it does not lead to the source of the stops. Which road you prefer to take depends on your evaluation of circumstances and priorities (Ax. 58). You could combine both approaches by using Postulate Auditing.

Re 4: Do the handling of point 1 to start with as that would form the prerequisite for everything else. Then you would have to do a thorough interview in order to establish the quantity of charge for each area of interest, and work out a program in the corresponding sequence. That would be the optimum route. Less optimum, a bit slower and less effective, would be to just give the pc question 1 of Postulate Auditing (“Tell me what’s bothering you”), and take it from there. Here you would totally rely on the bank opening up all by itself, by following the direction the pc’s attention takes. Those experienced in Dianetics would make a list of AESPs and handle engrams by R3RA-technique, hoping in the same way for the bank to open.


Drugs, medicine or alcohol taken excessively in the past or present have extremely undesirable mental and psychosomatic effects on the pc. A drug handling must be done as part of the Life Repair. Depending on the amount of charge on this subject, it is put in its appropriate place in the sequence of things to be handled.

The whole theory of the Drug Rundown is hinged on the term chemical release. One takes drugs in order to have a good time, to dull the comm-lines into the body so that no more pain is felt, or to get unusual mental or physical powers for a short time. It’s an artificial way of going release temporarily, and may even amount to states comparable to OT (“Keyed-out OT” [2]).

Yet, artificial or not, it’s a release in case it worked. (It doesn’t always work.)That’s why the first step on the classical drug rundown is a rehab of releases on the drugs taken. A list of drugs medicines and alcohol taken in the past is made. (The word “drugs” is to be taken in its widest sense, it includes anything causing physical or spiritual effects such as inhaling glue or poisonous gases.) Each reading one is rehabilitated in the style of Rehab by Counting, in sequence of read size, as usual.

The second step is a recall step. The pc recalls the times he took drugs, repetitive style, on four flows. This would complete the scientology-style drug rundown.

The dianetics version extends from this. One would now find out about the AESPs connected with the drugs taken and run the respective engram chains on four flows. Then one would find out what AESPs were the original reason to take each of those drugs, and handle the respective chains by dianetic technique (R3RA).

You can do a Drug Rundown in the style of Postulate Auditing too. Take a reading drug on the list and lock-scan all the times the pc took it till you get down to absolute basic - which is when the pc decided he needed a little help because he couldn’t bear it any longer. Or it was a drug implant. During the lock-scan, do make a note of all reading AESPs. When you have finished the lock-scanning part and erased all the basics you found, you would then take up the AESPs incurred so far and audit them with the steps 1-20 of Postulate Auditing. (Are habilitation of past releases through drugs, medicines and alcohol is not done separately as it is well taken care of during the lock-scanning part.)

The EP’s are worded according to the four flows. Flow 1: “No harmful effects left from drugs/medicine/alcohol taken in the past; no further need to take them.” F-2: “No compulsion to give drugs to others to make them happy or suffer less.” F-3: “No compulsion to take drugs oneself when one sees others take them.”F-0: “No need to give drugs to oneself to make oneself feel better.” (The difference between F-1 and F-0 lies in the determinism. In F-1 one was asked to take them; in F-0 one decided to do so oneself.)

Should your pc be a heavy druggy (now or in his past) he may need a special set-up program consisting of vitamins, adequate nutrition and exercises. As well he should be given the opportunity to do useful physical work, getting properly rewarded for it. This program starts to re-establish an ethical basis for his life with self-determined control of body and environment. He ought to do plenty of objective processes and TRs, to be auditable on recall processes later on. This is because drugs block his recall ability and make needle and TA go sticky.

Of course it is permissible to take medicines in an emergency, particularly organic or homeopathic ones, to then stop taking them when the emergency is over. Therefore one cannot say that anybody who took the occasional medicines, has a “drug case”. Even then, when the pc never was hung up on drugs, you still had better check the Drug Rundown EPs, just to be sure, and to confirm it for him.

(Ref: HCOB 21 Dec 1980, “The Scientology Drug Rundown”. HCOB 17 Oct 69, “Drugs, Aspirin and Tranquilizers”. All entries in the index of Vol.X, XI, XII under the heading of “drugs” and “drug rundown” . A useful compilation of relevant materials is given in the Volunteer Minister’s Handbook.)


(This section is mainly addressed to those readers who have some experience with Grades auditing.)

Grades are - as the term implies - a gradual approach to removing charge from the case. They are arranged in a logical order, starting with the subject of communication (Grade 0) and continuing with the subjects of problems (Grade I), overts/withholds (Grade II), life ruins (Grade III) and Service Facsimiles (Grade IV) . Their arrangement and their aim very much resemble the rudiments. Considering that each Grade has a few dozen processes, they are really a broad way of putting the ruds in on life.

Historical background: They are first mentioned in 1965 (C/S Series 2). Back then there was only a small number of key processes. They were co-audited since there wasn’t any paid-for auditing for the public yet. Between 1965 and 1970 the tech went badly out; the infamous “Quickie Grades” were delivered: all processes were done in a couple of hours by riding along on the F/N of the first process, thereby F/Ning all further processes in its wake. The remedy to this were the “Expanded Lower Grades”, a collection of processes put together by editorial teams who went through Hubbard’s original writings of the 1950s, looked through all processes they found scattered about in his various writings, and grouped them in accordance with one Grade or the other (C/S-Series 12). The BTB of 4 Jan 1972 finalized this project. (“BTB” means “Board Technical Bulletin”, a bulletin not written by Hubbard himself but by another.)

Note that by this time, the delivery of paid-for auditing to the public had started. It formed an important income source to the expanding CofS. Therefore many new auditors had to be trained as quickly as possible. In this context one may suspect that the Grades, being very simple to audit, were meant to replace the self-determined thinking, the solution-oriented creativity of the auditor and the C/S. (Not the original key processes, but the compilation known as “Grades 0-IV”.) Look at the early 70’s: Hubbard tried in many ways to dilute the Class VIII knowledge of 1968 down to the level of beginners, due to the shortage of Class VIII C/Ses at a time of worldwide expansion. So instead of having to work out their own solutions, beginners were given prefabricated solutions: fixed rundowns and repair lists for any possible situation. This didn’t do much good to their thinking ability.

The very nature of the Expanded Grades supports this suspicion. They are a catch-all method for any kind of case. If you’d start a pc on “ARC-Straightwire” (the lowest Grades process) and ran him through all charged processes there are up to Gr.IV, there’s nothing in the case which could possibly escape you. Provided there aren’t any unexpected case difficulties, such as a drug history, this approach could be done on anyone without any C/Sing. (See “Resistive Case Points” in the Tech Dict.) No thinking needed. Just run the next process. Boring on the pc, yes; pc not always in-session, yes; takes an awful long time and costs a fortune, yes; but in the end we are getting there, no doubt. It’s like shooting at your pet canary inside his cage with a shotgun: you don’t have to aim all that carefully as at least one piece of shot is bound to hit him.

The editorial team which put the Grades processes together certainly did a fantastic job. Without their efforts a huge amount of processes might have passed into oblivion. Yet they made two mistakes which the auditor ought to be aware of:

First mistake: they tried to turn process commands into four flows which should have been left standing the way they were. (Those were the times of “Triple Flows”, followed later by “Quadruple Flows”, so apparently everything had to be turned into four flows - by decree from “high up” -, whether it was logically fitting or not . )

Second mistake: in quite a few cases the flows are misworded in such a way that F-1 and F-2 are mixed up, that F-2 and F-3 only differ in that they are formulated as singular and plural, that F-0 looks the same as F-1 or is worded in some illogical fashion having nothing to do with the actual intention of the process. Both auditor and pc usually get into trouble when they try to work out what it all means.

So always, before running a Grades process with funny-looking flows which don’t make sense to you, check up on the original process by Hubbard. The source is usually quoted in the Grades process materials. Then decide if you are going to drop the flows on this particular process because it should be left as it was formulated originally, or if the wording of the flows has to be corrected.

Taking heed of the above, the C/S usually will have little trouble with the Grades. With the pc well set up, they usually run all by themselves . The only trouble one may get into is doing too much of them and overruning the EP.

The significance of the Grades nowadays, their value to the C/S, is a matter of discussion. Earlier on, in the seventies, one did dianetics actions as the first thing in order to handle the pc’s physical problems, to set all his attention free and allow him to fully concentrate on Clear. This purpose was served by the Grades, which back then went up to VII. The EP of Grade VII was the Clear. 1976 and 1978 - with Dianetic Clear - significant changes occurred in the tech; the old Grade VII was no longer needed. (See Volume 1.) Which technical criteria (or power politics) played a role there, is hard to guess. In the end (and up till today) it all came down to the pc receiving first “introductory processes”, then the Grades, then Dianetics. Most incomprehensibly, the Life Repair, earlier an integral part of the bridge below anything else, was omitted. The beauty of a Life Repair is that it is directly tailored to the pc’s needs. This one cannot say of the Grades they are much rather a broadside from all guns. Even the old Standard Dianetics, done by means of AESPs voiced by the pc, was very much following his personal needs, which is certainly not so with New Era Dianetics (NED) and its hyper-technical approach to the case.

As a result from the re-building of the bridge and the omission of the Life Repair, the tech had lost its “human dimensions” and became unpleasantly technocratic. The reason for this may be what was already said further up: anyone can audit Grades, you don’t even need a C/S for it. But doing a good interview and working out a tailor-made program - that takes experience and professionality. And not everybody has that. And as, in the CofS, degraded auditing has become a mass happening, it of course takes masses of auditors, who by necessity are greenhorns led on by greenhorns. And their tech is no better than that.

To go back to the question posed above: today, the Grades do not lead up to Clear any more, they are but a substitute for the Life Repair. Therefore they become less necessary the more care is taken in planning and executing the Life Repair. And, as a Life Repair program does not exclude dianetic auditing, it may happen that the pc works on his engrams so thoroughly that he goes Clear as a result. Try running the Grades processes after a good Life Repair was done, and you’ll see: yawning boredom. The same is true for Clears who didn’t have the Grades before: they also find them boring. Moreover they usually get a lot of false reads because they start running the entities of the composite case.

As usual, there is no single rule to suit all cases. The pc may have completed his Life Repair and you know there is still more that could get done on the case. But the pc doesn’t originate by himself. This means that he has arrived at a state of agreement with his life where he doesn’t see any more inconsistencies; therefore there are no origination’s and no reads . You could leave it at that, tell him to come back when he feels like he needs more auditing, let him go off, and do another interview and an expanded Life Repair when he returns. Or you could use the Grades processes on him, but selectively: only what he needs. Choose the process which in your estimation suits the pc best. And some of these Grades processes are marvelous; they can be real case crackers! Again, the only rule is that of standard tech: do just what the pc needs and wants, no more and no less.

Although not all pc’s may need the Grades as an auditing action, it must be clearly emphasized that the bulletins they are based on, are indispensable for the training of the auditor and the C/S. Anyone wishing to work professionally must study them.


Since flows are so common in Dianetics and in Grades auditing, the expert may have wondered how come there are no flows in Postulate Auditing. Well, you may have observed that in the auditing style of Book One there aren’t any flows at all, and that it still works very well. Flows were only introduced into auditing in context with the OT III research of the mid-60s. Why? Because Flow 3 runs out entities and disconnects the pc from his OTIII case. Which makes it easier to audit him on his own engrams later on.

Further, on closer inspection of Postulate Auditing, you will find that flows are in fact implicitly run on each item you handle The lock-scanning part starts it off with a motivator chain . Then you get to the basic, the real big motivator. Up to here it’s all Flow 1. Then you find the postulate in the basic incident, that’s Flow 2, because the pc did it himself and it is an overt. He may even find out how he was responsible for getting into this situation in the first place, which is Flow 2 again. Then, as you get to the repeater part, the pc starts pulling in entities by repeating the postulate, and to tell you about situations when he saw others using that particular postulate. Both of that is Flow 3 Everytime he cognites what he has done to himself by making succumb-postulates, he has a realization concerning Flow 0. So there are flows in Postulate Auditing, after all.

A Simple Life Repair Program


Each and every pc is most interested in solving the mystery of his existence, where he comes from, why he is here at all, where fate will take him. All these are significance’s, i.e. thought structures full of ponderous importance. The C/S, in contrast, is not interested in the significance’s but in the masses of the pc. He knows that there are incidents of unimaginable force and brutality on the time track, which have to be found and erased so that the pc may find answers to his questions about the where from and whereto, and gradually recapture his abilities as a thetan. He knows that it is only due to these energy masses that the pc keeps figuring why he is in the state he happens to be in. Without masses, without charge, the pc wouldn’t have any questions. He wouldn’t be introverted into significance’s, but find games in accordance with his goals and purposes and take on the challenge of real barriers and real enemies. He would be extroverted.

The C/S therefore has the obligation to help the pc find an access to these incidents. His attention is mostly on the TA-Action per session hour. This to him is the clear and irrefutable evidence that something is happening in the universe of the pc, that things get shaken about, broken loose, and cleaned up. The more, the better. TAA occurs only when incidents are being run. It does not occur when the pc philosophizes fancifully about life whilst holding the cans. Time, place, form, event and the exact postulate - only that counts to the C/S.

His constant question is: How do I get the pc to find and run an incident relevant to him? There are various possibilities, depending on the situation you are starting out with. Let’s look at them one by one:

Firstly: The pc tells an incident right from the start without any prompting. That is the simplest case. Her cat was run over yesterday; she is all in tears about it. Wonderful! Fancy an incident falling into your lap just like that! Let her tell you about it. Narrative style and running chains are the tools to use here.

Secondly: The pc is generally upset and annoyed because of a terminal, i.e. a person, place, animal, plant, or object. Or he is unhappy because things don’t work out right in some area of his life, be it concerning his girl friend, his job, his football club, whatever. He does not specify very precisely what’s going on. Something is foul, certainly, but what exactly? Here you would start out with a 2WC in a loose and easy manner, and give the pc the opportunity to blow off some steam and sort things out a little. As a result one would have found out who the terminal or what the area in question is. All right. Now how do you get down to the incident from here? With dianetics, you would ask the pc for the AESPs connected with this terminal or area. Once he has given you an AESP-item you can immediately ask him to relate it to his time track: “Recall a time, when . . .” And there comes the incident! With scientology auditing, you could keep up the 2WC and take it to a key-out and an F/N. You could use an L1C, six ruds or a prepcheck concerning the terminal or area in question. All of these methods will lead to incidents.

How deep one manages to reach into the bank depends on the skill of the auditor and cannot immediately be influenced by the C/S. It is quite possible as we have seen, to bridge over by means of Postulate Auditing, from the light scientology processes to the engram/GPM-bank. How good an auditor is at that, solely depends on his experience.

And that, simply, is the whole of the wisdom of the C/S and the whole of the task of the auditor. The rest is up to the pc. Communication with the incident, reality on the incident, affinity with the incident, cognition, erasure. The more he sweats and pants in the process, the more it’s worth it.


The following program addresses those auditors who are more at home with scientology than with dianetics methods. For starting a case it is most suitable for the third of the four situations already referred to above, which one may encounter in starting a new pc: no drug history, no somatics, only an interest in getting a better grip on life in general. The case is entered on the level of locks, but this can be modified as one goes along, in the direction of engrams, GPMs and entities, depending on one’s skill.

This program is useful when the pc does not originate further areas of difficulty by himself, for example after a laborious auditing period with respect to the first two of the four starting situations. He has gone through all the points originally troubling him. The approach below helps him to look for new areas of charge.

As well there is the advantage that one can do it without a prior interview. Therefore it is useful to the beginning auditor who can neither do a proper interview, nor analyze its data. Should you, as a green auditor, suffer from nervousness or stagefright: don’t worry. You can’t do any damage at all with the techniques presented here.

1) TA high when you start: “Are you protesting anything?” “Is something going on too long?” - “Has an achievement not been acknowledged?” - “Is there an O/R?” - Do you have pains?” - “Body problems?” - Is there something you cannot tell anyone?” “Something that would kill you if it were told?” (Ask in different ways as needed to suit the pc’s gradient of understanding. Handle all items the pc mentions, to F/N. You may have high TA F/N’s to start with but eventually the TA will be in range. See the chapter on High/Low TA.)

2) TA in range: fly six ruds . (Assess the ARCX slowly by TA, to start with.)

3) Ask the pc for times of trouble in his life. Note the reads on each area of charge . Take the biggest reading one, ask the pc to give you in his own words a prefix for the L1C questions you are going to ask him. (“In kindergarten...”, “Before the exams . . .”, “On my job . . .”.) Make sure the prefix reads well. (Never run an unreading prefix!) - Now do an L1C to EP, using this prefix. Then pick up the remaining areas, in sequence of magnitude of charge. (Result of 2 and 3: Ruds are in on life in general. Now the pc is not distracted by anything and can concentrate on past wins and releases.)

4) Ask the pc for achievements in his life which were not acknowledged, and for times when he carried on with an activity after having had a win on it, and then felt worse. Note all reads; then rehab all areas, starting with the biggest reading one. (Result of 4: Pc’s certainty and appreciation of self has increased enormously. He is now ready to confront the “big bad boys” in his life.)

5) Ask the pc for terminals he had trouble with in his life. (Terminal = a person, animal, place, or thing.) - Do a prepcheck on each one, starting with the biggest reading one. (Result of 1-5: Pc has cleaned the charge off great parts of his track; he is now prepared to take a long view over this lifetime and handle charge of long duration.)

6) Fly six ruds of long duration. Run them repetitively till they F/N on call. (This will dig up things way beyond what the pc was aware of when he started. )

Comments: You may do step 6 in the place of step 2 . You’ll find that “normal” ruds done as step 2 invariably draw you into an LD type handling, simply because the pc’s “whole life” is sitting on him. Quite often you will find that the new pc is bubbling over with charged items - so much so that the ruds approach will appear “too structured” to him. In this case the L1C or - even more uncomplicated - the prepcheck are better tools than the ruds. (It does depend on the auditor’s skills too.) When you are skilled with Postulate Auditing you may branch off from Ruds, Rehabs and Prepchecks and follow up postulates.

The Interview

After this simple program has been done, you should have an experienced person do an interview to search for areas which were so far missed out on, get him to work out a program for you, and clean those areas up as well.

Speaking from a strictly professional viewpoint, an interview should always be the first thing in line, followed by a thorough case analysis. No “catch-all” approach can match a tailor-made program. Of course, you can always help someone out by using whatever bits of tech you happen to know; and you should do it. That’s what the tech is there for, after all . But auditing professionally, that’s different.


There is a difference between an interview and auditing. When this difference is not understood there will be meager results in the interview and the C/S won’t have enough data to work from. This is the difference: auditing has the purpose of establishing a comm-line between pc and bank, and of as-ising the bank. In contrast to that, in an interview one doesn’t audit. One finds out what is there that can be audited later.

The interviewer gets data with charge on them. The auditor helps the pc to blow the charge. The interviewer does not do that. He just finds data. The program the C/S makes is based on data, and only on data. Without any data there can be no auditing program . These data are found by the interviewer in the interview. There are other sources of data, too, such as reports on the pc by friends and family, etc., which the auditor happens to hear about. But whatever their source may be: they have to be presented in writing to the C/S so that he may work out his solutions for the case in question, on their basis.

Principally, there are two types of interviews. One concerns the totality of the pc’s life and forms the basis of the case analysis and the Life Repair program. The list of questions following after the next section gives a good example of it. The other relates to specific situations, for example when the pc or student doesn’t seem to make any progress on his auditing program, his course or his ethics program, and the C/S wants to find out how he is doing. This latter interview usually has the simple form of a Two Way Comm on the question: “How are you doing in your current auditing?” (or whatever).


The interviewer asks the pc about a specific situation in his life or in his previous auditing, or about his life in general. Usually he has a list of questions worked out by the C/S. It is his job to get a full answer to each question. As long as he hasn’t clearly grasped the life situation of the pc yet, he does not fully acknowledge his answer.

The interviewer keeps at his question until he has got it. Then only does he acknowledge and go to the next question. (The question or the answers have to read, of course. ) As you are not doing repetitive auditing here, you ought to rephrase the question when you repeat it. You are not doing a “Two-Way Comm to F/N” either, which is a process. You are doing a “Two Way Comm for data”.

Sometimes the pc may start talking as if he were already in session. Do not allow this to happen. As soon as you have grasped the situation you tell him: “Thank you. I have fully understood the situation you are in. The charge on it will get handled in session, not now.” -And you go to the next question. All with good ARC, naturally.

Be curious about the other person’s life; get all the data. The product of a good interview: the interviewer has grasped the life and the time track of the pc so well that he could write a documentary screen play about it.


When you do an interview you may ask many questions, as many as you like, but there is only one thing you want to know: what is the pc’s ideal scene in life, what is his existing scene, and how far does the existing scene depart from the ideal scene? You want to help the pc close that gap; that’s the only reason why you audit him.

This particular questionnaire addresses new clients, who know nothing about scientology, as well as dyed-in-the-wool ‘veterans” . The questions would have to be adapted accordingly.

(1) “What would you like to get handled?”

(2) “Are there any other reasons you have come which you’d rather not tell me about?” (Possibly he is ‘ up to something”; possibly there is just something embarrassing. )

(3) “Tell me about your life from beginning to present time.” (Work out his timetrack with him so clearly that you can draw a chart of it in the end. Very useful for the C/S.)

(4) “As you look at your eight dynamics one by one, what involvement do you have with each one?” (Get areas of action and non-action; work out wins as well as losses. Should the pc not know the dynamics yet you may ask him in words he can understand, of course. Make sure that you - regarding the 2nd dynamic - find out about his relationship to his parents and grandparents, to his or her spouse, children and relatives; see if there were any losses or deaths.)

(5) “Does anyone have evil intentions towards you or does actual damage to you’? Do you have enemies?”

(6) “How are you doing physically?” (Food, sleep, energy level, exercise.)

(7) “Do you have chronic somatics? Or re-occurring acute somatics over a long period of time?”

(8) “Are you thinking and pondering about the unfortunate sides of your life? If so, what about?”

(9) “Did you take drugs / medicines / alcohol ? -When, how long, how much?” - “Are you currently taking any?”

(10) “In your life, have you had accidents / illnesses / operations / psychotherapies / electric shock treatment? - Any treatment going on currently?”

(11) “Are you a member of a secret society?” (A lodge, the secret service, a black magic circle, etc.)

(12) “Before scientology, have you done other spiritual practices?” - “Are you doing any currently?”

(13) “What do you want to achieve in your life?”

(14) “Can you recall past lives?”

(15) “What scientology auditing and training have you had so far?” (Get wins had/losses had, on the actions mentioned.)

(16) “Anything in scientology you are not certain about?” (Data not understood, weird auditing, whatever.)

(17) “Have you been in scientology already in your last life?” And: “Have you had anything to do with L. Ron Hubbard before this life?” (Ask only if the person was born later than 1950.)

(18) “Do you want to attain the state of Clear?” (Ask only if you are sure he knows what you are talking about. If not, phrase it as “a state of spiritual freedom and independence”.)

(19) (For those who have already attested Clear:) “Has your Clear state been stable?”

(20) “What are your ideas about the solo-levels? - What do you expect to get from them?”

(21) “Have you seen or been told about OT III materials?”

(22) “Is there anything we have missed in this interview?” (If this reads: follow it up!)


When you have a look at the definition of “Seven Resistive Cases” in the Tech Dict. and at the Expanded Green Form 40 (a repair list), you’ll find that this questionnaire deals with resistive case phenomena. To get them out of the way, it should be evaluated accordingly.

Question 1 asks directly for the pc’s life ruin. Here you often find the highest-charged area.

Qu. 2 gets at ruins which may be socially embarrassing to talk about. As well it reveals destructive intentions.

Qu. 3 has the pc re-construct his time track. This step in itself may cause quite some realizations and relief, too, as it creates order, certainty and orientation where before there was disorder or unawareness.

Qu. 4 It broadens the information received in Qu. 3 and opens areas of charge the pc didn’t think of yet. - It is important to get losses AND wins. The validation of a rightness (win) pulls a thetan up the tone scale and takes his attention off the wrongnesses (losses). Result: lessened introversion.

Qu. 5 The pc will mention terminals he considers suppressive and goes out of valence to. (See “PTS”, Tech Dict.)

Qu. 6 uncovers the reason for unsessionability and for “case trouble” which is really due to mistreating or neglecting the body.

Qu. 7 helps the C/S to decide whether to start with scientology or dianetic-style auditing.

Qu. 8 A person doing this has a failed purpose or is doing something which is very much off what he ought to be doing. He has a “wrong item” (see Tech Dict.)

Qu. 9, 10, 11 and 12 check into the resistive case points of “drugs”, “seriously physically ill”, “PTS”, “former therapies” and “other practices”. Charge on this may make the pc hard to audit.

Qu. 13 Here you usually get any failed purpose or a no-purpose-at-all situation, a lack of motive for living.

Qu. 14 is a “curiosity” question to find out about the pc’s spiritual abilities. The answers can be quite amazing.

Qu. 15 and 16 reveal glibness and superficiality in his past scientology training, as well as invalidation’s due to out-tech.

Qu. 17 will shed light on certain case peculiarities - for example that the person has already gone up to Clear or even OTIII in his last life and therefore has no particular interest in the lower bridge yet at the same time demonstrates an uncanny knowledgeability of things he wouldn’t be expected to know.

Qu. l8 When the pc does not want what this question is asking for, when he does not wish to become freer and spiritually more able, but only wants to be “cured” of something, it may well be that he is using a SerFac to make auditing wrong, to ‘ prove” to you that it does not work. When he has no goals beyond curing his stomach ulcers, he is - quite paradoxically - likely to keep his stomach ulcers under all circumstances, because it is the only thing by which he can attract interest. With you, the auditor, he does the same: he tries - in an aberrated way - to attract your interest. Perhaps there is nobody left in the whole wide world who would take an interest in him. So he pays you for listening. However, should his ulcers get cured, he would run out of a topic for conversation; therefore he cannot allow them to be cured! In order to resolve such a paradoxical situation, you, as C/S or auditor, need quite a bit of experience. Do not take such a person on unless you trust yourself to get a result. Here is a question you could ask in order to decide whether to take the case on or not: “Supposing your ulcers had disappeared, what would you do in life which you cannot do now because of the ulcers?” When the pc has a positive answer to this, he has as well a superior goal; making the ulcers disappear would therefore be a necessary and realistic sub-goal to him. With him you could easily work. But when he says: “Don’t know. I never thought that far ahead. I’ll start thinking about it when my ulcers are gone.” - then you had better be careful.

Qu. 19 You may get indicators for a false or incorrect Clear attest in the past, for uncertainties, eval and inval regarding Clear.

Qu. 20 detects false data. Get the source with time, place, form and event, get the moment he accepted the false datum and made it his own. Provide correct data. (This handling applies to any kind of false data beyond the limits of this question.)

Qu. 21 When that has happened, the C/S has to be very careful when he makes his program. (When he isn’t OTIII himself he’d better leave it to someone who is.)

Advanced Programming

Step 0: Do the interview.

Step 1: Take a sheet of paper, note down each reading origination of the pc in the sequence they occur in the worksheets. Note the reads down with them. A pattern will emerge once you have noted down the first dozen or so. In the end you can tell that the fifty or eighty origination’s the pc has given, spiral around five or six ruin areas only.

Step 2: Take a new sheet and group the origination’s together in terms of areas. Husband reads, first marriage reads. That’s one area: second dynamic. Then there’s the 7th dynamic: interested in magic, talks to the spirits of the dead; has done yoga and meditated. That’s another area. Then there is his business not doing well. A third area. And so on. Sometimes the areas you find will coincide with the dynamics; sometimes there will be more than one area to a given dynamic.

Step 3: Add up the reads in each area. To do so, you must determine the “blowdown-value” of each read. How much TA-blowdown is caused by a Fall? By a sF? By a LF? This depends on the sensitivity used and on your type of E-meter. - Procedure: Put the needle on “set” with the sensitivity used in the interview and the TA on 2. Move the TA gently up. The needle will start falling. When it has reached the width defined for the sF you can tell how much TA movement went into this sF. It may not be more than 0.05 divisions on a sensitivity of 3. But ten sF’s make a total blowdown of 0.5 divisions, and that’s a lot! (This is why you need to note down each and every read as it occurs in the interview. )

Step 4: You have now worked out the amount of charge for each area. There will be one or two highly charged ones, three or four lesser ones, and a number of “stray reads” which stand for themselves. Arrange it all in the sequence of magnitude of charge. This is the sequence of your actual program, too. All that’s left to do is to find out which process you’ll have to use to “crack” each area.

Steps 2 and 4 in a way relate to data evaluation. (See Data Evaluation Series in the green Management Volumes.) You have found outpoints (reading items) and pluspoints (non-reading and F/Ning items) . You put all the outpoints together to find the area which departs the most from the ideal scene, and propose a handling: the auditing process you are going to use in session. (See Logic 13, in “Scn 0-8”.)

Step 5: Now try your tools on the areas found. What to use exactly is hard to say as it depends a lot on your previous experience, the previous experience of the pc, the complexity of the situation, the daringness of the auditor. You could use an L1C, six ruds or a prepcheck on the 2D-situation mentioned in Step 2; you could single out one BD-item (first marriage) and work on it separately before getting into the general area of the 2D; you could cool off the general aspect first with an L1C on “your 2D” and then pick out the particulars. It is so much up to the individual constellation of facts and circumstances that only general advice can be given. A catch-all is “6 Ruds on the 2D, done repetitively till they F/N on calling them. “ -A more specific one: “Prepcheck on the 2D, lock-scan each BD item that shows up, to postulate and F/N; continue prepcheck this way till all compulsive attention is off the 2D.” - One for those who can do L&N: “Who or what would represent the 2D to you?”; get the BD F/N item and do 6 ruds or a prepcheck on it, then clean up the 2D in general with an L1C taken to F/Ning list.

Past wins, abilities once had and somehow lost, life purposes which were never attained are - naturally - done with rehab tech. Always make sure the item you are rehabbing is exactly worded to a big read or BD (see “itsa”); it will run all by itself then.


Do not worry about actually making one of the ten thousand possible mistakes one could make in auditing, or about making your pc worse than he is. You cannot audit something the bank is not willing to give out. You can only audit what’s available. The biggest reading item is the one most available to be run. Should you have made a mistake in arranging the sequence of charged areas or in the selection of processes you are using on them, well, the worst that can happen is: nothing. As long as you are not forcing the pc, no damage can be done. And if you only listen to what the pc’s attention is on, you’ll soon know what’s available, and that’s what you run. Any of the processes presented in Part Three of this handbook applied to any of the pc’s areas of charge, will blow charge and - therefore - increase awareness. They are all workable - which isn’t to say that your use of them will always be elegant or artful. Their correct application to the right item - so that they hit like a bomb - requires experience. Artfulness comes with time.

Just do it and keep doing it. Audit hundreds and hundreds of hours. See what your tools can do for the case. Get to know them. And, little by little, you’ll be able to predict how the case will react to a certain approach. You will be able to calculate your moves against the bank like a master chess-player predicting his enemy a dozen moves in advance. And then you’ll be a C/S. The C/S must be able to predict. He determines the longterm strategy of dealing with this case. The auditor makes this strategy come true in each of his sessions. He uses on-the-spot tactics and flexibility. The C/S is the strategist, the auditor the tactician.

To briefly summarize the sequence of action in its simplicity, no matter whether it applies to a one-man-band or to a larger setup: The interviewer does his interview. The C/S works out a program of perhaps eight or ten major steps . The auditor takes the pc in session and works on the steps prescribed by the C/S. When they bite, all is well. When they don’t bite, or half-bite, it may be due to the auditor’s inability to realize the program step in session, or to the program step unexpectedly not paralleling the pc’s case. Either way, the auditor ends the session after the EP or when it does not go, and writes it up: he puts numbers on his worksheets, summarizes the session content on the Auditor’s Report Form, writes his comment in red and his next C/S in blue and fills out the Folder Summary. Then he hands his folder in to the C/S who reads through the worksheets and gives his comments. Either he accepts the auditor’s proposition for the next C/S without changing it in any way, or he corrects it, or gives an entirely new and different instruction. Should the auditor have overlooked something or made a technical mistake, the C/S gives him a short study program to avoid a repetition of the same situation. If the auditor’s C/S was accepted, he can go back in session right away. However, if he was given a study program, he has to work it through before being allowed to audit further. The jargon term for this form of teaching is “cramming”. The C/S himself needs cramming occasionally, for example when he has failed to solve one or even several cases. In a larger set-up he would usually have a “Senior C/S” picking up his mistakes and correcting him. Lacking such a person, he would look around for some other C/S whose abilities he trusts, and consult him. So the “correction of the corrector” is done on a voluntary basis here. (He would be ill advised not to do it, because sooner or later his customers will stay away!)

How long does it take to become a professional? Five thousand well done auditing hours to become technically proficient, ten thousand to understand what it is all about.

PC Gone Clear?

How can you tell when your pc has gone Clear? And, if so, what do you do?

Here are some typical indicators: pc has had a successful Life Repair, is now on the Grades but has little TA action and no interest in the auditing; has lots of false reads and runs entities instead of own incidents; says he has more wins on study than in auditing; blows charge by inspection; can handle somatics at will out of session and without an E-meter; keeps asking questions about the solo-levels. But he doesn’t think or say that he might be Clear. Or he does say so. Now what do you do? Answer: leave it up to an experienced C/S.

Of course it may happen that your pc has had a big win or release and just thinks he’s gone Clear because he doesn’t understand the technicalities of it. In this case you do a rehab on the release, explain the whole thing to the pc and carry on with your program. However, if your pc does have the indicators mentioned above, you should delegate the case to a C/S who has already done his OT III.

Why? Before Clear you have a being who is identified with his composite case. When he goes Clear he understands that he is himself, that he is mocking up his own pictures and thereby causes his own troubles himself. But he doesn’t quite understand yet what it is exactly that exists along with him, i.e. the entities of the composite case. In C/Sing a Clear Check, you must be able to discriminate between “own charge” and “others’ charge” . This moves you close to the C/Sing style used on the Solo-levels. To get experience in this field, there is only one way: the C/S must have solo-audited successfully himself. This is why your Clear Check ought to be C/Sed by an OTIII C/S.

It’s always advisable for the C/S to be at least one level up from the level he is C/Sing. The C/S C/Sing OTIII should himself have completed Excalibur the C/S C/Sing Excalibur should have completed his case for good. -This is a safeguard to make sure that the C/S doesn’t dramatize his own case and project his problems into the case of the pc.

To let the cat out of the bag at least a little, a brief sketch of a possible approach to the Clear Check is now suggested. It is based on the Pre-Havingness Scale [1]. This scale, plus the reason why it has been chosen for the Clear Check, needs explaining before we get to the actual process.

The Pre-Havingness Scale ranges from Havingness, through various levels of attempts and failures to obtain it, to complete failure to be able to have. It describes a downward trend. To give an example of the logic of it: Supposing there is Havingness on a particular subject and something unpleasant happens, Failed Havingness, the next level down, would be the result. This would lead to interest in the subject, one further level down. This interest, if successfully pursued, would take one up the scale again to restored Havingness. If the interest fails (next level down), there will be the intention to be in Communication with the subject (again one level down) and should that attempt fail, the wish for Control will result. If that fails, you get the desire to Help. And so on, level by level, down to the aberrated levels of Inverted Help, Inverted Control, Inverted Communication and Inverted Interest. “Inverted” in this context would mean “turning back on oneself”, like the shot that goes off into one’s face instead of leaving the barrel. It means achieving the opposite of what is wanted. The inverted levels on the scale could possibly be interpreted as “knocked out of the game but still compulsively trying to participate somehow”, or “honestly attempting to play along, but unintentionally achieving the opposite of what the game is actually about”. (An example of this is given in Charlie Chaplin’s films. They all play at the bottom end of this scale . That people have an endless number of buttons in context with inverted help, control and communication, is demonstrated by the timeless success of these movies.)When there is a failure on even these levels, one drops to the bottom of the scale with Obsessive Can’t Have and ultimately the conviction that one can create No Effect at all.

What does this have to do with doing a Clear Check? Well, it puts the pc to a test. He says he is Clear - now does that mean that there is no charge on his timetrack he couldn’t handle by himself, or could it merely be that he is not aware of further areas of charge due to non-confront? This needs finding out. You cannot find it out by doing yet another interview, because the pc has originated all inconsistencies he is aware of; he is well in tune with himself and his life. So you must challenge him. This is done by clarifying with him the concept of each level on the Pre-Havingness Scale . When the clarification on a particular level does not F/N, you know that there must be something behind it, i.e. a non-confronted terminal or item. So you find out who or what that is. Then you trace it down to the incident which caused the situation, by Postulate Auditing. It will soon become apparent whether you are dealing with the pc’s own charge or with an entity. The result of this approach would be: hidden pockets of own charge cleaned up; remaining yet unrecognized valences discovered and erased or disconnected from; pc certain about having no further charge of his own that he could not as-is by merely confronting it. He would “blow it by inspection”.

With this Clear Check the pc has the opportunity to demonstrate that he “can be at cause knowingly and at will over mental matter, energy, space and time as regards the first dynamic (survival for self) “ [2]. The Pre-Havingness Scale covers all possible areas of unviewed charge he could still have at this stage. Now the pc can attest Clear with full certainty and knowledge.


1. Prerequisites:

1.1 The pc is on the whole in agreement with his life. He has things under control. He is future-oriented and optimistic. His life does not follow a roller-coaster course but is on a steady upward trend. He understands the basic knowledge of scientology tech, admin and ethics and applies it in life.

1.2 Should the above condition not be fully prevalent, i.e. should the pc still be troubled by this or that, it would be found in auditing him - if he really is a Clear - that he is being influenced by entities. There would be unmistakable evidence that his troubles do not stem from home-made charge from his own time track.

Before he can be allowed to attest and go on the solo levels, his troubles would need handling, though, by disconnecting him as much as possible from the entities bothering him. The techniques to be used conveniently would be either D/L for a light key-out, or Postulate Auditing for finding out what he does to keep the entity connected to him . )

2. Procedure Steps:

After having cleaned up all personal charge and all immediately troublesome entities according to 1.2, and after having attained the condition described in 1.1 above, the steadfastness of the person presumed to be Clear is put to a test.

2.1 Do a slow assessment of the Pre-Havingness Scale, starting at the top. What does each level mean to the pc as a general concept; what does it mean to him personally? Get him to tell you.

2.2 When there has been no F/N on one level or the other, you would first see how much charge is on each one of them (by counting up the reads). Then, beginning with the biggest reading one, you would ask: “Who or what could you . . .?”, filling in the item in question. For the first level on the scale this would be worded as: “Who or what could you easily have?” The ones below that would be worded like: “Who or what would you fail to have?”, “. . . would you be interested in?”, “. . . would you fail to be interested in?”, and so on.

According to the rules of Listing & Nulling, you should get a BD F/N item as an answer to your question. L & N questions are worded to allow for only one item to be the answer to the question. The pc will make a list of items which come to his mind, some of them will read, there may be a slight communication lag, and then suddenly he comes up with the item, has a BD followed by an F/N and laughs. This is not difficult at all, provided your TR-0 and your TR-2 are good.

2.3 Now you find the underlying incident. Supposing you had not received an F/N on clearing the level of “failed interest”, had done your L&N-process and received the item “apples”, you would now ask: “Recall the earliest time you can when you failed to be interested in apples” . Proceed according to Postulate Auditing procedure . (For a briefer and more superficial handling you could branch off at this point and do a D/L.)

2.4 Be very observant of the session getting efforty or unreal. In this case you immediately have to find the correct authorship for the incident you are running. Should you be dealing with a restimulated entity (instead of a mere non-confront of own charge), you audit it narrative style until it disconnects or “dissolves in thin air”.

2.5 The EP of the action is a cognition of the pc about his relationship to the composite case, with him being certain about his ability to create and un-create charge of his own. This may occur even before the whole scale has been done. If there is any doubt, it’s worth doing a few more levels and risking an overrun, rather than doing too little and staying superficial.

3. The actual check-up on Clear:

Now clear the definitions 1-9 of “Clear” with the pc, in the Tech Dictionary. Tailor them to suit the first dynamic as not all are formulated that way. Have the pc give you examples demonstrating that he can act that way. It is he who has to “come up with the evidence”. The definitions must F/N. (His sessions of the past count of course as “evidence”, too.)

3.1 Now 6 Ruds “concerning Clear” are taken to F/N, to do away with any last doubts or reservations on the part of the pc.

3.2 Now ask the pc: “When did you go Clear?” Pick this question up only when it is charged. This will be so when the pc has been Clear for quite some time already, without anyone having noticed or acknowledged it, or when he attained Clear in his last life. (Which might be the reason for much of the joyless auditing he had! Nothing but O/R and false reads.)

In order to rehabilitate the state, it is sufficient to find the exact point in time when it was attained (perhaps by using a D/L) and to then polish it up nicely with rehab-tech.

4. Attest:

The “pc” attests to being “Clear on the 1st dynamic” .

5. Instruction:

He gets full instructions about the composite case and about solo-auditing dealing exclusively with entities. The best basis for this instruction would be HCOB 30. July 1980, “The Nature of a Being”.

6. Result:

The Clear feels competent to handle the remainder of his case, i.e. his entities, as a solo-auditor. (Should he not say anything to that effect by himself, one ought to ask him in an interview.)

(Usually you would find some source references at this point. But there aren’t any worth mentioning. The two attempts by the CofS to “make Clears”, the “Dianetic Clear Special Intensive” or DCSI, later turned into the “Clear Certainty Rundown” or CCRD, are both too much of a joke as to be seriously discussed or referred to. For those who wish to convince themselves: the DCSI you find in Tech Vol.XII; for the CCRD, which has not been issued publicly, it is sufficient to ask the victims.)


Ethics is to be applied with not more strength than needed to make the fulfillment of one’s goals possible. There is no hardship and no ideology connected with it. Everything is just fine as long as the pc does whatever is necessary to attain the ideal scene he has postulated for himself. Products in life tell the tale. “Ethics: that which is enforced by oneself, his belief in his own honor and good reason, an optimum solution along the eight dynamics” [2] . It is the use of reason towards optimum survival.

We are not here to impose the morals of society or our own scientological convictions on the pc. We are here to enable him to find out for himself what’s right for him. Ethics should never be used as an other-determinism on the pc; it should increase his self-determinism.

Therefore, speaking from a practical viewpoint, the C/S shouldn’t worry about anything in the pc’s life as long as it does not interrupt his progress in the direction of Clear - no matter what opinions and feelings the C/S personally may have regarding the pc’s doings. From a Clear, however, one would expect that he is well in control of his life. Someone who expects his solo-levels to be a remedy for his life problems, is a pretty low-grade Clear or maybe not a Clear at all. And he will soon be in trouble on solo. At the point of Clear, then, the C/S must look at the life of the pc before giving him the ok to continue.

The theory of the bridge implies that a being will act increasingly rationally as he is getting rid of his bank. His ability to find sane solutions can be expected to rise to the extent that he lets go of his fixation on aberrated solutions. This means that you will need very little ethics handling as you take the pc up the bridge - as long as you are producing technical results on him. Because of bad tech the pc’s life may go up and down which makes it look as if he had an “unusual case”. (See “roller-coastering” in the Tech Dict.) For this reason the pc folder must be seen by the C/S before the pc is sent to the ethics consultant.

The other reasons for “ups and downs” are lack of data, missing know-how, false data, or uneducatedness in the activity one is failing in - maybe even a disability in mastering the three R’s (reading, writing, arithmetic). So at some point or other an education job will need to get done on such a person.

When the pc’s activities in life amount to a real present time problem (PTP), it must be handled for real - with the tools of ethics. With all the auditing hours in the world you cannot expect to handle a real-life present-time ethics situation. A rather obvious example may serve to illustrate the point: a husband beats his wife every night he comes home from the bar. His wife gets auditing to handle the situation. You audit her to a win. She goes home, her husband beats her up as usual. The next day she has more auditing. Goes home, gets beaten up. And so on. Doesn’t work, you see?

Any subjective problem (the considerations in the pc’s own universe) is handled with auditing tech. Now that the charge is gone and the pc is able to confront his life better, it may turn out that there is as well an objective part to the problem. This is the appropriate moment for the pc to have an ethics consultation. When a handling which was agreed upon has been actually and demonstrably done, auditing can be successfully resumed without any further distraction.

Example: The PC has problems handling money. After completing the respective auditing cycle he may have no more charge on his overts and withholds on the subject of money, but he still cannot handle it. Why should he, after all? Perhaps he has never learned it!

An alert C/S picks up the situation before it can build up steam and keeps it from developing by using all the tools at his disposal, not only auditing. He must predict; that’s his job.

From Clear On Up

In this book, the most common auditing methods from Life Repair to Clear have been presented to you. To say more - in simple words - would be hard, because from here on up on the bridge the application of the tech becomes so differentiated that its description would go beyond the limits of this text. The skill required in steering a thetan through his composite case to a point of case completion, can only be attained after auditing and C/Sing some dozens of cases successfully up to Clear, and after having done the solo-levels oneself, too - with personal gains. It takes a professional to understand the upper bridge.

What makes things difficult, too, is the unavailability of reference materials . The levels OT I-III have always been kept confidential by the CofS, and rightly so as they may be restimulative to some people and one doesn’t want to run the risk. (A bit of mystery makes for better selling, too.) In order to talk in detail about the ins and outs of solo-auditing and solo-C/Sing, one would need a full set of the OTI-III scripts. They cannot be reprinted here for the reason stated, and because of copyright violations. They can easily be obtained, though, from most non CofS centers. Yet the mere fact of having them doesn’t help. It takes experience to understand them and apply them to a good result for oneself or the solo-auditor one is C/Sing.

Now, in the 90’s, giving someone the OT III materials to read may not put him at risk any longer. After roughly two million solo auditing hours (at least) on OT III and Excalibur, done between 1968 and 1988, this part of the case has gone pretty flat. This is demonstrated by solo-auditors today not being restimulated by OTIII as much as they were up to 1988. The same is true for the levels below OTIII. R6EW, the C.C., OTII - they were a fighting matter at the time they came out, they took hundreds of hours for each solo-auditor who did them. Today they don’t push a button any more in most people . These levels have gone flat on the 4th dynamic. Bits of them may still show in individual cases (1st dynamic) but the general phenomenon is that the Earth case has gone flat, at least the Xenu part of it. There are other things showing up now which aren’t straight OT III or Excalibur, yet can only be understood and handled in these terms, i.e. with reference to Xenu’s game.

This is not to underestimate the value of these levels. For one person they may not do much, yet the next person may have a tremendous amount of charge tied up in the composite case and in his whole unviewed involvement with other beings and entities. When he is Clear he is in shape to start really dealing with it. The auditing techniques available to dig deep into this make for extraordinary gains, no denying it.

The C/S must know his tools inside out and be flexible, that’s all one would need to say. He must work on the case as it presents itself to him here and now, and not confuse it with some case example Hubbard gave years ago for instructional purposes. The C/S bears great responsibility; his knowledge must match up to it or he won’t be able to control and predict the case he is C/Sing. Much as the OT III materials are rendered relatively “harmless” now, they shouldn’t be thrown on the market wholesale as they may be picked up by “C/Ses” who weren’t steeped in the experience of a few thousand hours of auditing on the lower bridge and who are therefore liable to use the data to the detriment of their public. And to the detriment of the subject itself - because as long as quackery and dilettantism are tolerated in scientology, there will be nobody wishing to grant it any acceptance in science and society.

But let us return to the “upper bridge”. What is it really? The answer most readily given is: “the OT levels”. Even in this book we have used this as an answer without worrying too much about its validity. Yet it is not a proper answer, because there was no proper question! To speak of the upper bridge merely in terms of the OT levels, wouldn’t do any justice to the different needs of individuals, their different awareness and pace. The CofS has for a long time encouraged a fiction of “OT” as an undefined yet specific magical state where all powers are restored and eternal freedom is regained. Or something like that. And that the OT-levels will take you there, when they are finally issued and when you have paid for them. This isn’t a bridge at all of course, but it is their hold on people and their undoing.

The correct question we ought to ask is: where do we want to go; where is a bridge meant to take us? Generally speaking, auditing results in a greater sense of identity for the person who had it. He feels backed up by the experience of a few hundred lifetimes, he senses greater depth and feels more settled within himself. He understands his present as the result of things left undone in the past. To the extent that he knows his goal and can tackle the tasks connected therewith successfully, he will be happy, for the definition of happiness is: “the overcoming of not unknowable obstacles towards a known goal” (“The Fundamental Axioms of Dianetics” in [2].)

Which implies three possibilities for his further development: when he fails, because freedoms, barriers and purposes have become unbalanced and things took an unfavorable turn against him and his game, he will want more auditing. He has failed ethically and now he wants help to become “repaired”. When he is happy with his life, and keeps on being happy, he won’t dream of ever getting audited again. Or, after having become so stabilized on his new level of knowledge and awareness and having explored it to its limits, he may become curious to find out more. He may wish to get a good C/S and pick up the solo-cans again in order to work out answers. He has found new and higher goals, new freedoms, but along with them new obstacles, too. This sort of expansion one would expect from someone playing his game ethically.

Looking at auditing as a general growth process towards ultimate beingness, doingness and havingness, there is an end to the bridge only at that final point when the thetan has done it all and seen it all, completed his self-determined mission and sees no further reason for his own existence. Auditing certainly abbreviates the time it would take to get there, but it is no substitute for the corresponding activities. The incomplete cycles, the overts and withholds, the “bad karma” of the past once they have been taken away from one’s own universe, it is so much easier to strive, in the “real” world, for the final attainment of one’s basic goal in one’s current cycle of existence’s. And how long would it take? A few lifetimes? Some thousands of years? As much time into the future as it took from the moment one entered the mest universe, to the present? How long does it take to complete a cycle of action? It takes as long as it takes. “Time is the primary source of untruth” (Ax. 43) . The main thing is to keep growing in terms of quality, not in terms of speed.

A true bridge would have to be adaptable to this pattern of growth in a smooth and organic fashion. It certainly isn’t that the pc goes “up the bridge” in a straight line! Not at all. The key items of his life as a thetan, his reason for being in the game at all, will keep re-appearing in ever more subtle form. Auditing therefore can be viewed as an upward spiral much rather than as a bridge. You will see the pc going through the same sort of thing again and again, each time on a finer level, until finally he has solved the “riddle of his existence” sufficiently to play happily along towards the end of his games cycle.

Much as it may be different from individual to individual, there is still a recognizable pattern in this. To start with, one is usually dealing with Flow 1 and Flow 2: what have others done to one, what has one done to them? The result of that is a Clear who can keep himself clean on the 1st dynamic. After that follows a long stretch of Flow 3: what have others done to others? This is the subject of the OT levels proper, where one audits the entities of the composite case, created by powerful forces on the intergalactic battlefield. With that done, this subject matter has lost its impressiveness to the solo-auditor. He can have it. By that time, entities have become about as solid and visible to him as the lamps in a beer garden. From now on his attention will gradually turn to Flow 0: what has he done to himself to become who he is now? This is perhaps the most important one. A thetan, in the final analysis, has created himself by postulates. Everything else depends on this. Whatever attitude or consideration, principle, concept or policy he has once used successfully or saw others use successfully, he collected and kept, all along the track since that moment when he created himself - a moment which is far away as well as now. And along with it he created and stored some working installations; they allow him, amongst other useful things, to drive a car, write, recite the alphabet and play the violin, without him having to put too much attention on it (circuits).

The thetan always keeps one finger, as it were, on his awareness of himself as a static, and it is from this knowledge that he can consider that even the most positive structures that aid his game play are but fabrications, and he should be able to as-is or change them at will. One’s involvement’s with bodies, use of mental constructions at all, reliance on mest for communication could be, where it is not a matter of free choice, considered “case” and therefore subject to the need for a bridge.

These are of course structures across all the dynamics, and our bridge doesn’t penetrate that far (yet), not withstanding CofS selling tactics. After dealing with all obvious reactive bank, after exhausting “negative gain”, there still remain the positive characteristics, the mental attributes that one has accepted as “oneself”.

You probably have noticed that the point we are getting to, is the analytical mind, known as well as a man’s “character” or “personality”, perhaps as his “ego”. It’s what he mocked himself up to be. And it’s what he is going to keep on being, exactly as long as it takes him to unmock himself again.

According to the two “Rights of a Thetan” it is up to each individual to leave his games in a manner determined by him alone. This is not a collective endeavor where all, in step with each other, would go through the same phases of development. One doesn’t have to wait until the others are ready. Only each one for himself can make up his mind with regard to his rate of progress, can know what is left to be done by him until he can attain the state beyond all games.

And a bridge is only as good as it takes you there.

Author’s Postscript

What I have tried to do in the two volumes of this book is to present a distillation of my experience with scientology, of what I found valid and workable, so that one may be able to freely talk about it without being forced into agreements and conclusions, and without cringing inwardly. This experience has three aspects: that of studying and being audited, that of applying it in my private life, my family and, naturally, my job, and lastly that of having become a member of a movement which I consider vitally important in cultural and humanitarian respects. When I started to become interested in scientology, it appeared to promise insights into the connectedness between man and his mind far beyond any comparable system I was aware of. This promise has been kept. My studies into, and personal experiences with, western psychology, eastern philosophy, yoga and meditation were, prior to that, of great importance to me but turned out to have been only preliminaries, for when I finally hit upon scientology, it allowed me, retrospectively, to fully penetrate the earlier disciplines.

In the many years I have worked with scientology, I was not alone but with a number of others at various times, first inside the CofS and then outside, both as an auditor using the tech individually, and helping to train others in its use . (A double function which is practiced by most auditors in the CofS independent field.)

The reason to write all this down was partly to clear my head of the whole thing at a point where I felt I finally got on top of it, but also because of the realization that it could well serve a useful purpose in helping others to understand something that is not that easy to grasp from available materials.

Personally I feel it is our joint responsibility to care for the immense achievement that Ron Hubbard’s work represents, and to exhaust all its possibilities. It is the responsibility of all those who feel a mental response to his thoughts. One should not by any means leave this up to the CofS alone. A glance in your daily paper will tell you what results they are getting and how far adrift they are.

As soon as you take the viewpoint that you are responsible for something, it becomes easier to comprehend it and to identify areas that need further clarification. It is probably this that has enabled us outside the CofS to resolve various aspects of the tech, particularly about the upper part of the bridge, that were left incomplete by Hubbard and were proving dissatisfactory in practice. This, and the fact that no-one in the CofS is allowed to contribute to the subject, which they think was Hubbard’s job, and they believe he completed it. So there is nothing that ever came from their side, no further thoughts, no reflections, critical discussions, whatever, and one would not expect anything to come from them in the future.

It seems very much so that we were right in taking on this responsibility. One example for that is the reach of the bridge as it is delivered outside the CofS, and the results obtained. This is true in particular for Bill Robertson’s “Excalibur” which certainly does reach parts of the case that “NOTs”, the CofS’s equivalent, cannot reach. As well, the standard of a “case completion” is wholly unknown in the CofS. And as it is all entirely within the concepts and technology as devised by Hubbard, we may assume that we did the right thing and that he would approve of our work instead of turning in his grave.

I am, of course, not claiming all is known to us regarding the mind. I restrict myself to simply saying that a certain stage of know-how and effectiveness have been achieved which can be made public in this way. Perhaps it will help others to take their part in the work of carrying it further, the work L. Ron Hubbard started when he wrote in 1950 at the end of “Dianetics, Modern Science of Mental Health”: “For God’s sake, get busy and build a better bridge ! “

I for one take him seriously.


Admin: A
Example for session worksheets

John F. (pc) TR-3
Paul B. (auditor)
My wife, that I shouldn't
10.6.1990 always cut my fingers whilst
________________________________ peeling them!
sensitivity: 3 LF
TA: 3.7 (without creme) 2.3
2.8 (with creme)
breath: F
(comm lag)
(This Is The Session)
Funny, everybody seems to
15:32 (GIs) 2.9 keep telling me what I should do...

How did it go since vour
last session? 2.7

very well! F more to that?

(GIs) Seems they think I can't
look after myself
(F/N) sF
15:33 2 8 Like a baby.

We continue the prepcheck (grins)
on apples 2.6

suggested? button,TR-4
My grandmother, that I that's all, really
should eat more of the X
apple tart
sF 2.9

TR-3 next button:
mistake been made?
My friend, that I should X
come and steal some
F wouldn't know what
to say on that ...
2.5 3.1

Admin: A

next button: protested? TR-2

Perhaps when apples are 2.9
sour? I'm always protesting Would you believe it .. !
when I get a sour one They think I'm a baby!
The trouble is - half the
3.4 time I do feel that way!

Regarding this session -I'm a baby
is there a protest? now fancy that! Gee!
3.6 2.4
no (laughs loud)

Regarding this session. has TR-2
something been overrun? (F/N)
3.7 15:53 2.5
well, that's possible...

Something you want to say
wouldn't know what, though or ask before we end
the session?
Perhaps a
release point? No. that’s all right!

(still laughing)
a cognition?
F (F/N)
3.6 15:55 2.5
Hmmm ... Could be ...
(End Of Session)


maybe when I reallzed that
they all think I'm a baby?

Admin: B

Example of an Auditor's Report Form

John F. 10.6.1990
Paul B.
Session time so far: 2:43
Session time today: 0:23
Total: 3:06

TAA: 2.2 (= 6.0/hr) TA-Range: 2.3-3.7

Process Time TA Sens. Result

TITS 15:32 2.9 3 GIs

How did it go
since last
session~ 15:33 2.8 good, F/N, GIs

Prepcheck cont’d
from “suggested”, pc very responsive
three buttons to start with,
then dries up,
3.7 TA rising

Protest/Overrun? A cognition was
bypassed: "I'm a baby!"

15:53 2.5 F/N, VGIs

Admin: C

Example of a C/S-sheet

In red ink:

John F.
Paul B. 10.6.1990

Went well. Pc had a cognition and blew a valence. This did not immediately show up, so we had to do a brief rehab.

Although his cognition is important it only related to the button in question but not to the subject of apples in general. So we can assume that this prepcheck is not quite complete yet.

In blue ink:

C/S: 1. How did it go since last session? (Brief 2WC to F/N. possibly a rudiment to F/N.)

2. When there is an F/N, or when the pc has no F/N but already starts originating about apples: continue prepcheck "on apples' to EP.

3. Next step on the programm.

In red ink:

Paul B. (signature)

Admin: D

Example of a Folder Summary

3.6.1990 Interview & Pgm
9.6.1990 Prepcheck on
2:43 apples, 6 buttons,
F/N at EOS.
10.6.1990 Prepcheck cont'd,
0:33 3 more buttons,
cog "I'm a baby",
F/N at EOS.

The rudiments, general pattern

A) ARC-Break

1. Do you have an ARC-Break ?
2. Tell me about it !
3. Was it a Break in - affinity ? - reality ? - communication ? - understanding ?
4. Was it a Break in (e.g. communication) ?
5. I would like to indicate, it was a Break in (e.g. communication).
6. Was it - curiosity about (e.g. communication) ?
- a desired (e.g. communication) ?
- an enforced (e.g. communication) ?
- an inhibited (e.g. communication) ?
- no (e.g. communication) ?
- a refused (e.g. communication) ?
7. Was it a (e.g. a refused communication) ?
8. I would like to indicate, it was a (e.g. a refused communication).
9. Is there an earlier similar ARC-Break ?

B) Problem, Invalidation, Evaluation

1. - Do you have a present time problem ?
- Have you been invalidated ?
- Has someone evaluated for you ?
2. Pc tells the incident.
3. - Is there an earlier similar problem ?
- Is there an earlier similar invalidation ?
- Is there an earlier similar evaluation ?

The rudiments, general pattern

C) Withhold, Overt

1. Has a withhold been missed ?
Have you committed an overt ?
2. a) What was it ?
b) When was it ?
c) Is that all to it ? (must read)
d) Who has missed it ?
e) What did X do that made you think he/she knew ?
f) Who else has missed it ? (see e)
3. Is there an earlier similar mw/h (or overt, respectively) ?

D) The “False”-Handling

Has anyone said you had
- an ARC-Break,
- a present time problem,
- a missed w/h,
- committed an overt,
- been invalidated,
- been evaluated for,

when this was not the case ?


AESP 30, 31, 33, 37, 62, 66, 74, 76, 78, 86, 96, 101
Assessment 48, 50, 62, 65, 66, 69, 74, 92, 111
Attest 42, 43, 107, 111
Auditor’s code 11, 13, 15, 18, 40, 41, 54, 55, 95
Auditor’s presence 83
Basic 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 64, 66, 72, 76, 80, 83, 96, 99, 117
Buttons 25, 51, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 77, 78, 80, 84, 110
Case supervisor 41, 42
CCH 22, 25
Chain 31, 33, 36, 37, 51, 66, 69, 71, 72, 74, 76, 78, 83, 99
Chemical release 96
Circuits 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 92, 93, 118
Clear 10, 18, 20, 21, 27, 41, 43, 88, 89, 95, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117
Cognition 15
Dating and locating 60, 83
Drugs 19, 54, 81, 95, 96, 105, 106
End phenomena 15
End phenomenon 19, 27, 62, 66, 74
Engram 24, 31, 32, 33, 35
Entities 113
Entity 30, 33, 38, 87, 91, 93, 111, 112
False read 51, 71, 74, 81, 99, 110, 112
Flat 61
Flows 75, 96, 98, 99
GPM 24, 49, 76, 83, 90, 101
Indicators 12, 15, 21, 27, 31, 32, 42, 43, 46, 50, 56, 78, 88, 89, 107, 110
Item 60, 62, 78
Itsa 15, 52, 60, 61, 62, 66, 69, 72, 74, 78, 91, 109
Justification 72
L1C 48, 66, 69, 101, 102, 108
Life repair 60, 68, 95, 96, 98, 103, 110, 116
Listing and nulling 60, 86, 87, 88
Lock scanning 31
Lock-scanning 31, 33, 35, 36, 40, 64, 72, 86, 96, 99
Lockscanning 92
Narrative style 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 59, 64, 66, 90, 101, 112
Objective processes 10, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 92, 97
Overrun 15, 39, 49, 78, 90, 91, 92, 112
Postulate auditing 10, 30, 35, 36, 39, 60, 64, 73, 77, 80, 91, 95, 96, 99, 101, 103, 111, 112
Pre-havingness scale 110
Prepcheck 61, 62, 63, 64, 77, 86, 101, 102
Process 15, 91
Program 10, 42, 46, 86, 95, 96
Q & A 42
R3RA 40, 96
Rehabilitation 76, 89
Release 91, 92, 96, 110
Repair list 65, 91
Repair list 48
Repair lists 59, 60, 66
Repeater technique 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 64, 80
Repetitive process 22
Rudiments 56, 59, 60, 68, 95, 97, 128
Secondary 31, 32, 33, 49, 69
Tone arm 45
TRS 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 41, 50, 67, 86, 95, 97
Two way comm 103, 104
Valence 28, 30, 35, 62, 71, 73, 90, 93, 106
VGIs 15
(с) При использовании информации с сайта указывайте ссылку на него.
Одитинг и обучение - создание духовных способностей в любой точке мира через Skype: timecops
Сообщений: 1946
Зарегистрирован: 25 июн 2011, 15:42

Вернуться в Free Zone english materials

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 5